Don't forget that it is possible to scan directly from microfilm - one doesn't need to try to hang on to paper copies of records in anticipation of scanning in the future.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Suzanne Etherington
NYState Archives Region 6 Advisory Officer
Binghamton State Office Building - #1604
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY  13901
voice: 607/721-8428
fax: 607/721-8431
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.archives.nysed.gov


>>> [log in to unmask] 10/03 10:16 AM >>>
The recognition of the importance of "paper" copies needs to be
shouted across every means of communication.

Not only newspapers and city directories and phone books but CARD
CATALOGUES..............how many of us have found ourselves in  the
nightmare situation of trying to learn anything from on-line catalogue
data bases?

Some colleges we have visited have carefully placed their "old" card
catalogues [cards & furniture] in out-of-the way places in the stacks -
thank goodness.  Others have sent the cards to the dump.  We have
heard of "nuts" who have rescued card catalogues and are now trying
to keep them from getting damaged by the same elements that attack
newspapers.

Trying to hang on to paper originals of any of these records is essential
and not to be considered a symptom of "Ludditism."

Leigh

Leigh C. Eckmair
The Local History Collection
THE GILBERTSVILLE FREE LIBRARY
e-mail:[log in to unmask]

On Monday, October 02, 2000 12:41 PM, Don Rittner [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> Last year I wanted to OCR (optical character read) city directories from a
> nameless State Library into a database I'm creating.  They told me that
> after they microfilmed them the company dumped the hard copies.  I suppose
> they never thought that OCR technology would come down - cost wise - to the
> end user.
>
> Hmm, what is the old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket?
>
> dr
>
> > From: "Joseph A. Cutshall-King" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: "A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
> > history." <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:50:13 -0400
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: New York Press and "newsmen's race"
> >
> > I absolutely agree. Any newspapers I've had microfilmed in the Washington
> > County
> > Historian's office have been saved, understanding that better technologies may
> > come along to better reproduce. Scanning will be, ultimately, such a
> > technology,
> > in spite of the pooh-pooh-ing of those who dismiss the technolgy as too
> > fragile,
> > etc. Coming from a museum background before I became a municipal historian, my
> > training was that we saved everything we could. It's anathema to me to see
> > papers
> > copied and dumped because they are "crackling away," or "too brittle to last."
> >
> > Regarding that last issue, Nicholson  Baker's article "Deadline" in the July
> > 24,
> > 2000 issue of The New Yorker magazine is a must read for anyone who places
> > total
> > faith in the permanence of film. It shatters that concept. I've worked with
> > film
> > collections since 1975 and I have seen nothing to suggest that any microfilm
> > can
> > last the length of time they are suggesting. Moreover the initial quality
> > leaves
> > so much to be desired, I can't imagine heaving the whole lot of a local paper
> > on
> > someone's say so that a microfilm master copy will be all that is needed for a
> > few thousand years. It flies in the face of preservation, the laws of physics,
> > andof  museum conservation training to place that kind of faith in a single
> > medium of storage, especially that stores not the original but a captured
> > image.
> >
> > I've felt this before I read Baker's article and I feel more strongly about it
> > now. There needs to be open discussion and free questioning in the scientific
> > community dealing with preservation and conservation on this matter.
> >
> > A local newspaper in our region nearly ended up in the dump because of such
> > philosophy. It's been preserved, though heaven only knows where it will end up
> > without money. I am at loss as to understand how we can have absolute faith in
> > the prospect of a medium that has only been around for less than two
> > centuries,
> > and itself so fragile, being the saving element in our printed history. It
> > also
> > seems to be contradictory when one considers the notion that newspapers are
> > being
> > thought of too fragile to last, hence the "film them now before it too late
> > theory." Is film's substance that much more durable? I need more proof. A sad
> > point about newspapers are the tons of them being resurrected from landfills
> > and
> > barely showing any signs of disintegration after decades and decades of being
> > expected to rot away.
> >
> > Will this issue be discussed openly?
> >
> > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> >> Is any effort being made to preserve or archive the original newspapers (many
> >> printed on crumbling, acid paper)?  Despite the fragility and crumbling
> >> nature of these yellowed originals, they nevertheless contain photographs and
> >> illustrations that reproduce terribly on microfilm.  Many of these printed
> >> newspaper photographs, despite their screened format and grain, are the only
> >> "originals" we'll ever have.  These crumbling papers should just be put away
> >> somewhere and saved anyway.  Future technology may make it possible to make
> >> further use of them.  I fear that libraries may be all too eager to destroy
> >> originals once they are microfilmed.
> >
> > --
> > ________________________________
> > Joseph A. Cutshall-King
> > Grant Writing/Fund Raising Services
> > Affiliate of Charles R. Putney, Development Services for Nonprofits;
> > Bennington, VT
> >
> > PO Box 154
> > 693 County Route 49
> > Cossayuna, NY 12823
> >
> > Tel.: 518-692-9505
> > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >