Preservation and Microforming

In 1936, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) made microfilm a regular supplemental material to its finding aids. By 1940, NARA began to use microform for preservation, especially of newspapers and certain public access government documents. 1956 marked a mass effort to preserve fragile deteriorating documents, a project which became known as the Microfilm Preservation Project. In 1977, the television miniseries “Roots” inspired a national interest in genealogy and therefore microfilm as a research media. In the late 1990s, NARA launched the Electronic Access Project in response to users’ expectations for online access to research materials. Today, NARA has over 4,000 microfilm publications. The Microfilm Reading Room in Washington, D.C. remains a hot spot for genealogy researcher (Niekrasz et al. n.d.).

The Brittle Books phenomenon of the 1980s made preservation by microfilm significant to more than just newspapers. These books were characterized by brittle pages and bindings—a direct product of the acidity of the paper effecting the integrity of the text block and its binding. The Association of Research Libraries and a host of other national institutions addressed the issue in the 1980s allowed for the publishing of a national standard for permanent paper (Fox 1996: 26-28).

Image taken from http://libguides.wustl.edu/c.php?g=47421&p=303799

Kenney and Chapman (1996) intimated in the late 1990s that a hybrid approach to preservation would be the best option (179). This would include microfilm masters as backfiles to accompany digital imagery. While at the time of this writing the technology to support digitization efforts was not as advanced as it is now, Cornell’s Preservation and Conservation crew identified many of the same drawbacks then as effect digitization crews presently such as enduring access (187).

Alongside the articles discussed in the posting entitled “Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Microforms,” Fox (1996) discusses extensively the topic of preservation microfilming with a focus on standards approved by the Association of Research Libraries.

Bibliography:

Fox, L.L., ed. (1996). Preservation microfilming: A guide for librarians and archivists. Chicago: American Library Association.

Kenney, A.R. and Chapman, S. (1996). Digital imaging for libraries and archives. New York: Department of Preservation and Conservation, Cornell University Library.


Niekrasz, E. et al. (n.d.) The National Archives: A pioneer in microfilm. Google Arts and Culture. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/exhibit/QQXzWF8K.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Microforms

In order to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using microform in the library, the following articles have been presented to explore different perspectives on retaining microforms as backups, retaining the original media after it has been microformed, what type of media is best for backfiles, and, in Brown et al., the benefits, limitations, and areas of further research into microfilm’s potential in the research and information communities.

Silverman, R. (2015). Retaining hardcopy papers still important in digital age. Newspaper Research Journal, 36(3), 363-372. DOI: 10.1177/0739532915600749

Silverman makes the case for retaining hardcopy newspapers even after they been microfilmed. He discusses the U.S. Newspaper Program and its destruction of newspapers at a point where the preservation of newspapers was a viable option. Silverman argues that only original newspapers have the capacity to serve as backups for screen copies, serve as master copies for augmenting, enhancing, or correcting faulty copies, and provide authentication for original production and questions regarding provenance.

Canepi, K. (2003). Microfilm serial backfiles: Are they still cost effective? Serials Review, 29(4), 282-286.

Canepi compares the cost of bound serials, microfilm backfiles, and digital backfiles. Her study suggests that bound journals are now considered more cost effective than microfilm backfiles and stable electronic backfiles can be more cost effective than bound journals. While microfilm was once the most cost effective it no longer is.

Brown, H., et al. (2012). The role of microfilm in digital preservation. Microform & Digitization Review, 41(2), pp. 65-82. DOI: 10.1515/mir-2012-0008

Brown et al. identify microfilm’s key benefits as longevity, sustainability, and flexibility that they can also be used to great success as data integrity and digital risk management tools. Identified limitations include its physicality and therefore incapable of capturing dynamic, interactive digital materials. The writers also discuss microfilm’s ability to bridge the gap between digital and analog materials. They also identify a number of further research areas which need to be explored such as the life expectancy of color film and the need to develop standards for “digital to microfilm” conversion among others.

Image Creation and Duplication

Microforms have a variety of types as discussed in the introductory post of this blog. These types include microfiche, microfilm, microcard, and aperture card. Microfilm and microfiche are the most common with microfilm topping out over microfiche. Microfilm comes in two forms: COM and what we might call preservation microfilm. COM stands for “computer output microfilm” which is exactly what it sounds like. Preservation microfilm would be the reformatting of a document into microfilm. In this instance, it would not be a far stretch to think of COM as equivalent to digital born materials such as websites whereas preservation microfilm would be equivalent to digitized documents.

Below is a recent video from the State Library of South Australia showing the microfilming of a series of newspapers and the subsequent storage of these newspapers. According to the video, the shelf life of newspapers when properly stored is 100 years while the shelf life of modernly manufactured microfilms (those not prone to vinegar syndrome) is upwards of 500 years with proper care and storage.

The creation of microfilm is best seen as a photographic or film development process requiring a preconfigured reduction ratio (Kenney and Chapman 1996). Standard microfilm sizes include 16mm, 35mm, 70mm, and 105mm. The most commonly used size for the purpose of preservation is 35mm microfilm. Kenney and Chapman (1996) discuss at length the justification for retaining microfilm (or, more generally, microform) masters in the face of producing digital images (179-186). This hybrid approach will be discussed in greater length in the post “Preservation Strategies and Microforming.”

Bibliography

Kenney, A.R. and Chapman, S. (1996). In Digital imaging for libraries and archives. New York: Department of Preservation and Conservation, Cornell University Library.

The Rise (and Decline?) of Microform Use in Libraries

Providing access to information in its respective community is the basic goal of the library. Though microform has never been considered a commodity for the average person, it had a great impact on the retention, distribution, and preservation of newspapers, periodicals, library card catalogs, pamphlets, and scholarly and archival publications (Valentine 2012: 128). This became particularly apparent in the 1960s, especially with the use of COM, “computer output microfilm,” for such sources as library catalogs (Malinconico 1977). Though microform media are still of great use for storage and preservation, preservation microfilming is now also giving way to digital preservation.

With the evolution of microform readers to accommodate the digital age, it is unlikely that we will see a drastic reformatting from microfilm to other digital with the base purpose of destroying the microform. Though there is a push to make the resources on microform more accessible, having the microform backup for the digital files and for onsite access is still a strong preference. Below is a video from the Nebraska State Historical Society showing how to use the ST View Scan II in conjunction with the ST Imaging software.

Evolution of readers

Microfilm readers have moved from being cumbersome machines able to run one format per machine to machines linked to computers which are able to run both microfilm and microfiche. The software on these new machines allows for the digital capture of images and saving to cloud storage or removable storage devices. While some older, more expensive models were able to print directly from the microform machine, this feature was not easily maintained. Below are examples of both new and old machines for viewing microform media.

Traditional Microcard Reader in the University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library Microform Collection

Traditional Microfilm Reader in the University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library Microform Collection

ST View Scan set up at the University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library Microform Collection

Detail of ST View Scan

Bibliography

Malinconico, S.M. (1977). Foreword. In A.J. Diaz (ed.), Microforms and library catalogs: A reader (ix-xvii). Westport, CT: Microform Review, Inc.

Valentine, P.M. (2012). A social history of books and libraries from cuneiform to bytes. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, pp. 128.

Current and Potential Trends

With the advent of the Internet, electronic media, open access, and the digitization movement, some might wonder what place microforms have in the changing dynamic of media in the library world. Many institutions such as NARA continue to maintain their microform records because of the cost effective nature of storing microfiche and microfilm reels. While microform media are no longer the preferred means of preservation, microforms themselves have an exceptionally long life span.

With the evolution in microform readers, microfiche and microfilm can now be read on the same machine which is connected to a computer and a special software for reading microform images. Images can be captured and saved to cloud storage or removable storage devices such as flash drives.

ST View Scan set-up in The University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library Microform Collection

A close up of the ST View Scan Microform reader

While microform media produced prior to the 1980s has the likelihood of succumbing to vinegar syndrome, there are companies that continue to offer services to libraries and corporations for the digitization of deteriorating microforms. These same companies also tend to offer preservation microfilming for old and fragile newspapers and deteriorating books. One such company that offers both of these services is Newspaper Archive and its sister company Heritage Archives.

Similarly, the Library of Congress, in partnership with the National Endowment for the Humanities, has developed the National Digital Newspaper Program, a program which seeks to create an Internet-based, searchable database of U.S. newspapers (The Library of Congress 2016). This program includes the digitization of newspaper microfilm. The project is searchable through the program website Chronicling America.

The Ogden Standard November 20, 1916, an example from Chronicling America, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058396/1916-11-20/ed-1/seq-1/

Even though digitization and the Internet have supplanted microform as a priority preservation tool, microform as a media is still very much in use. This is evidenced by the evolution of microform readers and by the continued use of microform collections by such significant institutions as The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Library of Congress (LoC) and many academic libraries. The use of microform media will likely continue to evolve, a statement which is evidenced by the National Archives UK creation of online digital microfilm services.

Bibliography

Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Humanities. (November 3, 2016 [last updated]). The National Digital Newspaper Program. The Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/ndnp/. 

Pioneer Scientists and the Early History of Reprography

John Benjamin Dancer is considered the pioneer of microphotography. In his everyday life in Liverpool, Dancer was an optician and scientific instrument maker. In 1839, he began to experiment with concepts put out by photographic pioneers Louis Daguerre and Fox Talbot. By 1840, Dancer had developed a method of taking photographs of microscopic objects using silver plates. In the 1850’s, Dancer adopted the wet collodion process developed by Frederick Scott Archer. By 1859, Dancer was able to present microscopic slides of portraits and whole pages of books (“Dancer, John Benjamin” 2016).

Black and White Portrait of John Benjamin Dancer,
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/imgoct10/J.B.Dancer.jpg

Rene Dagron utilized the procedures developed by Dancer to begin the first commercial microfilm enterprise. During the Franco-Prussian War, specifically the Siege of France of 1870, Dagron used microfilm messages attached to carrier pigeons to carry messages across the German lines (Lahood and Sullivan 1975, 4-8; Daavid 2005). The first business use of microfilm was in the 1920s by a banker, George McCarthy. Eastman Kodak bought McCarthy’s invention and marketed it under Kodak’s Recordak Division into the 1930s. 1938 saw the use of microforms for the purpose of archival preservation, namely Harvard University Library began its Foreign Newspaper Project. In this same year, Eugene Power founded University Microfilms, Inc. (Heritage Archives 2015).

Portrait of Rene Dagron, 

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/imgoct10/Dagron.jpg

During WWII, the need to preserve documents, archives, and collections saw a flurry of microfilming by all nations. In the years following the World War, microforms alongside photocopies became active information sources in libraries. In the 1970s, microforms were entered as an alternative to more expensive print materials. Shortly after, Kodak introduced polyester-based microfilm as an alternative to the old “Kodak Safety Film” which had an acetate base and was quickly succumbing to vinegar syndrome. This new film is said to accurately preserve images for over 500 years. Because of this, microforms are now considered a long-term-use media (Heritage Archives 2015).

Bibliography:

Dancer, John Benjamin. (2016). In The Hutchinson unabridged encyclopedia with atlas and weather guide online. Retrieved from http://lynx.lib.usm.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/dancer_john_benjamin/0.

Daavid, J. (March 10, 2005 [last modified]). The history of microfilm: 1839 to the present, a virtual exhibit. The University of California Southern Regional Library Facility. Retrieved from http://www.srlf.ucla.edu/exhibit/html/.

Heritage Archives. (2015). Brief History of Microfilm. Retrieved from http://heritagearchives.org/history.html.

LaHood, C.G. and Sullivan, R.C. (1975). Reprographic services in libraries: Organization and administration. Chicago: American Library Association.

Defining Microform, Its Basic Types, and Its Position in the Library

To begin our journey into the diverse realm of microform in library collections, we will first define microform and the types of microform commonly used.

Microphotography, also termed microform or more commonly referred to by its most common permutation microfilm, is almost as old as photography itself. The first microphotographs were produced by John Benjamin Dancer in 1839. Drawing on Daguerre and Fox Talbot’s photographic methods as well as the work of other scientists, artists, and inventors, Dancer eventually perfected the process (“Dancer, John Benjamin” 2016). However, it would not be until much later, practically the term of the century, that the process would become a staple in records and preservation communities on the global scale. A more detailed history and expose on Dancer and other individuals of significance to the development of microphotography will be discussed in the next posting "Pioneer Scientists and the Early History of Reprography."

Example of an Aperture Card from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Aperture_card.JPG/400px-Aperture_card.JPG

Photo of New York Times Index, 1874-1883 microfilm reel located in The University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library microform collection

Microform is commonly defined as the generic media on which text or images are reproduced in a drastically reduced state using microphotographic processes (“Microform” 2016). The two most commonly discussed examples of microform are microfilm and microfiche; however, other types of microform include aperture cards and microcards. Microfilm is very similar in form to 35mm camera film while microfiche resembles a small overhead projector transparency sheet. Microfilm is often cited as having low-reproduction and storage cost alongside space-saving attributes; however, it does require special readers in order to properly few the material.

Photo of School Library Journal, Sept 1978, Volume 25, Issue 1 microfiche located in The University of Southern Mississippi Cook Library microform collection

Altered Detail of Above

In the library world, around the 1930s, microform techniques became particularly important for the storage of fragile documents that would not necessarily be able to stand the test of time such as aging newspaper collections or books made with heavily acidic paper. The year 1938 saw the founding of University Microfilms, Inc., now a part of ProQuest (see history of corporation here), and  the beginnings of Harvard University Library’s Foreign Newspaper Project (Heritage Archives 2015). Looking to more contemporary examples example, The Library of Hattiesburg, Petal, and Forrest County is the primary repository for the local newspaper The Hattiesburg American. This paper continues to be microfilmed and stored at the Library to this day even though a significant portion of the paper is now available digitally through the Newspaper Archive database. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is still using microfilm for the purpose of preservation and storage, citing microfilm as a “low-cost, reliable, long-term, standardized image storage medium” (NARA 2016).

This project regarding the evolution of microforms in the library setting is continued in six other postings.

1. Pioneer Scientists and the Early History of Reprography
2. Image Creation and Duplication in Microform Processes
3. The Rise (and Decline?) of Microform Use in Libraries
4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Microform
5. Preservation Strategies and Microforming
6. Current and Potential Trends in the World of Microphotography

Bibliography

Dancer, John Benjamin. (2016). In The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide online. Retrieved from http://lynx.lib.usm.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/dancer_john_benjamin/0.

National Archives and Records Administration [NARA]. (2016). Microfilm. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/microfilming.html.

Microform. (2016). In The Hutchinson unabridged encyclopedia with atlas and weather guide online. Retrieved from http://lynx.lib.usm.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/microform/0.

Heritage Archives. (2015). Brief History of Microfilm. Retrieved from http://heritagearchives.org/history.html.