Actually, it's more a case of operator error. I worked for a microfilming company back when it was new. You had to really be careful of your light. Come to think of it, those early cameras had no way to change the focus. Anyway, if the light was too strong the page would be washed out. Something I've seen a lot of. Sue [log in to unmask] Got Road Runner? Find out what they're not telling you. http://www.BroadbandWatch.org Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "William MacKay" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:50 AM Subject: microfilm quality > If the truth be told, much microfilm reproduces terribly. In many cases, > only part of the page was photographed in focus. Compound that with the > variables of the microfilm machine and the idiosyncrasies of the printer and > you have a recipe for faulty photographing or transcription. Copying pages > from The New York Times a few weekends ago at the NYPL, I was repeatedly > frustrated by problems that would not even occur to some one using > hard-copy. From my perch as a history buff, microfilm [notwithstanding its > huge contributions] was adapted before its technology was perfected. > > None of which, of course, negates Phil Lord's points that preservation and > access are the key issues, and that funding problems do obstruct utopian > solutions. > > Bill Mac Kay > > New York City. >