Good microfilm, produced according to the standards in state regulations and properly used and stored will blowback to excellent images. Unfortunately, not all has been so produced and maintained.

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/05/00 04:08PM >>>
I find that illustrations scanned from microfilm are terrible.
dr

> From: Suzanne Etherington <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
> history." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:53:46 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: microfilming, etc.
>
> 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]
>>>
>