College and Research Libraries B y R O B E R T H . M U L L E R Microfilming Services of Large University and Research Libraries in the United States Dr. Muller is assistant director of librar- ies, University of Michigan. IN CONNECTION WITH a s t u d y of m i c r o -f i l m i n g s e r v i c e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n L i b r a r y , c e r t a i n d a t a o n m i c r o - f i l m o p e r a t i o n s a t o t h e r l a r g e u n i v e r s i t y a n d r e s e a r c h l i b r a r i e s w e r e c o l l e c t e d in J u l y , 1 9 5 4 . S o m e of t h e d a t a seemed of s u f f i c i e n t g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t to w a r r a n t t h e i r d i s s e m i n a - t i o n t o a w i d e r a u d i e n c e , w h i c h e x p l a i n s w h y this s u m m a r y a r t i c l e w a s w r i t t e n . I . PRODUCTION OF M I C R O F I L M I n f o r m a t i o n w a s o b t a i n e d f r o m a l l t h e 2 1 u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h o l d i n g m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 v o l u m e s , as re- p o r t e d in t h e " S t a t i s t i c s f o r C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , 1 9 5 2 / 5 3 ( P r i n c e - t o n ) , " 1 p l u s e i g h t s e l e c t e d r e s e a r c h , s p e c i a l , o r p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s t h a t w e r e k n o w n to o w n l a r g e r e s e a r c h c o l l e c t i o n s . 2 P A T T E R N S OF SERVICE A l l the 2 9 l i b r a r i e s m a d e some k i n d of a r r a n g e m e n t s w h e r e b y l i b r a r y p a t r o n s c o u l d p u r c h a s e m i c r o f i l m copies of m a t e r i a l s in t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s . H o w e v e r , o n l y 18 o w n e d c a m e r a s , a n d o n l y 1 4 of these did m o s t of t h e i r o w n d e v e l o p i n g . D e t a i l s a r e s h o w n 1 C a l i f o r n i a ( B e r k e l e y ) , C a l i f o r n i a ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, D u k e , H a r v a r d , Illinois, I n d i a n a , Johns Hopkins, M i c h i g a n , Minnesota, N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h w e s t e r n , Ohio State, P e n n s y l - v a n i a , P r i n c e t o n , S t a n f o r d , T e x a s , W i s c o n s i n , Y a l e . 2 H u n t i n g t o n , John C r e r a r , L i n d a H a l l , N e w b e r r y , N e w Y o r k P u b l i c , U . S . A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l , U . S . Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , U . S . L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . T A B L E I 35 m m Microfilming E q u i p m e n t Owned by Research Libraries, J u l y , 1954 Libraries N o . of C a m e r a s Developing Done in L i b r a r y ? L i b r a r y of Congress 24* yes U . S. A r m e d Forces Medical 16 small a m o u n t s Chicago 5 yes California (Berkeley) 4 yes N e w Y o r k P u b l i c 3 yes Yale 3 yes, except for large yes, except for large orders U. S. D e p t . of Agriculture 1 yes California (Los Angeles) 1 yes " s o m e " H a r v a r d 1 yes " s o m e " H u n t i n g t o n 1 yes L i n d a H a l l 1 yes P r i n c e t o n 1 yes Columbia r yes D u k e 1 yes Illinois 1 yes J o h n C r e r a r 1 no Ohio S t a t e 1 no P e n n s y l v a n i a 1 yes * 10 Recordak Models E (portable), 9 Recordak M o d e l s D , 3 Recordak Models C - i , 1 Recordak Model C-2, 1 D i e - bold Flo-Film Model 9003. T h e L i b r a r y of Congress also owned 3 R e m i n g t o n Rand 16 mm cameras. in T a b l e I . C o n t r a r y t o a s t a t e m e n t in 1 9 5 0 t h a t " a l l of t h e l a r g e r l i b r a r i e s h a v e e q u i p m e n t f o r m a k i n g m i c r o f i l m , " 3 it w a s f o u n d t h a t a m o n g t h e 2 9 l i b r a r i e s s u r v e y e d , 1 1 h a d n e i t h e r m i c r o f i l m c a m e r a e q u i p m e n t n o r p r o c e s s i n g f a c i l i t i e s of t h e i r o w n . C o r - n e l l , J o h n s H o p k i n s , M i n n e s o t a , N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , a n d S t a n f o r d w e r e h a v i n g m i c r o f i l m i n g w o r k d o n e t h r o u g h c a m p u s 3 V e r n o n D . T a t e , " A n A p p r a i s a l of M i c r o f i l m , " American Documentation, I ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 96. JULY1955 261 T A B L E I I P r o d u c t i o n of N e g a t i v e Microfilm By 21 U n i v e r s i t y and Research Libraries L i b r a r y N o . of Period L i b r a r y exposures covered L i b r a r y of Congress 2,506,332 1953/54 N e w Y o r k Public 1,315,000 1953/54 Chicago 964,589 1952/53 U . S. Armed Forces M e d i - cal L i b r a r y 811,180 572,652 1953 California (Berkeley) 811,180 572,652 1952/53 H a r v a r d 420,000* 1953/54 L i n d a H a l l L i b r a r y 400,000 1953 Michigan 177,838 1953/54 Yale 133,647 1953/54 Illinois 100,000* 1953/54 U . S. D e p t . of Agriculture 100,000* 1953/54 H u n t i n g t o n L i b r a r y 100,000* average H u n t i n g t o n L i b r a r y 1944/54 California (Los Angeles) 99,200* 1953/54 Columbia 90,000 1952/53 D u k e 28,000 1953/54 P e n n s y l v a n i a 21,801 21,016 1953/54 P r i n c e t o n 21,801 21,016 1953/54 S t a n f o r d 20,000 1953 J o h n C r e r a r L i b r a r y 16,740 1953 Ohio S t a t e 16,000* 1953/54 J o h n s H o p k i n s 6 , 3 5 0 1953/54 * A p p r o x i m a t e l y . p h o t o g r a p h i c a g e n c i e s . M i c h i g a n did its filming w i t h a c a m e r a s t a t i o n e d in the li- b r a r y , b u t o w n e d b y t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i r m U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s . N o r t h w e s t e r n re- f e r r e d r e q u e s t s f o r m i c r o f i l m i n g s e r v i c e to the U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o . A t I n d i a n a , T e x a s , W i s c o n s i n , a n d t h e N e w b e r r y L i - b r a r y , m i c r o f i l m i n g w a s h a n d l e d t h r o u g h c o m m e r c i a l c o n c e r n s . S e v e r a l of these li- b r a r i e s r e p o r t e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s u c h a r r a n g e m e n t s , e x c e p t w h e r e t h e v o l u m e of w o r k w a s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . T a b l e I I s h o w s t h e a p p r o x i m a t e a n n u a l o u t p u t of m a j o r m i c r o f i l m i n g l a b o r a t o r i e s , e x c l u s i v e of p o s i t i v e m i c r o f i l m p r o d u c t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e d a t a d o n o t r e f e r t o p r e c i s e l y t h e s a m e d a t e s , t h e y m a y be t a k e n as i n d i - c a t i v e of t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of the l i b r a r - ies w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r a v e r a g e p r o d u c - t i o n of n e g a t i v e m i c r o f i l m . T h e t o t a l a n n u a l o u t p u t m a y be e s t i m a t e d t o be a b o u t 7 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 e x p o s u r e s , of w h i c h the s e v e n l a r g e s t l a b o r a t o r i e s p r o d u c e d a b o u t 8 8 % . T h e sales v a l u e of t h e t o t a l a n n u a l p r o d u c - t i o n of n e g a t i v e m i c r o f i l m w a s a p p r o x i - m a t e l y $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 f o r t h e 2 1 l i b r a r i e s in- v o l v e d . LABORATORY E Q U I P M E N T T h e c a m e r a e q u i p m e n t o w n e d by t h e li- b r a r i e s m o s t c o m m o n l y c o n s i s t e d of K o d a - g r a p h M o d e l s D a n d / o r C - i . O t h e r c a m e r a s o w n e d w e r e a K o d a g r a p h p o r t a b l e M o d e l E , a G r a f l e x P h o t o r e c o r d , a D i e b o l d F l o - F i l m M o d e l 9 0 0 3 , a n d , in one case, a L e i c a . 4 D e v e l o p i n g e q u i p m e n t consisted e i t h e r of c o n t i n u o u s m a c h i n e p r o c e s s i n g o r m a n u a l l y o p e r a t e d flat reel s y s t e m s , or b o t h . 5 O n e r e s p o n d e n t w r o t e : " A l l y o u n e e d f o r de- v e l o p i n g of f i l m s is $ 5 0 0 ( m a x i m u m ) a n d a g o o d - s i z e d c l o s e t . " 6 T h o s e w h o h a v e in- s t a l l e d m o r e e x p e n s i v e c o n t i n u o u s m a c h i n e p r o c e s s i n g e q u i p m e n t m i g h t d i s p u t e this r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d p o i n t t o the risk of s c r a t c h i n g t h e f i l m w i t h m a n u a l l y o p e r a t e d s y s t e m s . A s F u s s i e r p o i n t e d o u t : " I t is in this e v e r p r e s e n t risk of s c r a t c h i n g , w h i c h o c c u r s o c c a s i o n a l l y w i t h e v e n t h e m o s t c a r e - f u l o p e r a t o r , t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l d i s a d v a n t a g e of the s y s t e m l i e s . " 7 PROCESSING OF M I C R O F I L M T h o s e w h o r u l e o u t t h e m a n u a l l y o p e r - a t e d flat r e e l s y s t e m s , e x c e p t f o r o c c a s i o n a l e m e r g e n c y use, are f a c e d w i t h a c h o i c e be- t w e e n i n s t a l l i n g t h e i r o w n c o n t i n u o u s m a - c h i n e p r o c e s s i n g e q u i p m e n t o r h a v i n g t h e d e v e l o p i n g of f i l m d o n e o u t s i d e t h e l i b r a r y o n a c o n t r a c t u a l basis. L i b r a r i e s t h a t h a v e t h e i r f i l m p r o c e s s i n g d o n e c o m m e r c i a l l y p a i d 4 For an early report on camera installations, see : Irvin Stewart, "Microphotographic Equipment in Cer- tain Libraries," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, I (1938), 208-9. 5 "Processing Methods for Microfilming," in Micro- filming with Kodagraph Micro-File Equipment and Materials ("Kodak Industrial Handbook," published by the Eastman Kodak Company, 1952), pp. 34-37. 6 See also: Richard C. Gremling, " Y o u Can A f f o r d Microphotography," Library Journal, L X X V (February 1 5 , 1950), 246-7. 7 Herman H. Fussier, Photographic Reproduction for Libraries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), P- 157. 262 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES b e t w e e n $6.03 and $ 6 . 5 0 f o r d e v e l o p i n g 100 feet of 3 5 m m film, i n c l u d i n g the cost of the film, or about $ 1 . 2 5 if the cost of the film w a s not i n c l u d e d . A m o n g the laboratories that w e r e e n g a g e d in d e v e l o p i n g w o r k f o r libraries w e r e the R e c o r d a k C o r p o r a t i o n , the G r a p h i c M i c r o f i l m C o m p a n y , and U n i v e r - sity M i c r o f i l m s , I n c . ; a l l libraries reported t h a t the w o r k w a s s a t i s f a c t o r y , except f o r distance and time delay in one case. In t w o instances, d e v e l o p i n g w a s done in the local p h o t o g r a p h i c l a b o r a t o r y of the u n i v e r s i t y ( S t a n f o r d , J o h n s H o p k i n s ) . If w e assume a m i n i m u m cost of $3000 f o r c o n t i n u o u s processing equipment ( e . g . , D i e b o l d M o d e l 9 1 0 7 ) and an a m o r t i z a t i o n period of 1 0 years, the a n n u a l cost of c o m m e r c i a l proc- essing w o u l d h a v e to be, at least, $300 b e f o r e the investment in equipment could begin to pay f o r i t s e l f ; to this a m o u n t must be added the cost of labor and chemicals, w h i c h w o u l d v a r y w i t h the v o l u m e of processing. F o r $300, 24,000 feet of m i c r o f i l m could be c o m m e r c i a l l y processed. O n e h i g h l y experienced respondent ex- pressed the opinion t h a t " 1 0 to 15 rolls of n e g a t i v e film per day can be h a n d l e d quite e c o n o m i c a l l y by a c o m m e r c i a l c o n t r a c t o r . " A n o t h e r e q u a l l y e x p e r t respondent, w i t h w h o m this opinion w a s discussed, f e l t t h a t machine processing e q u i p m e n t can be justi- fied l o n g before a v o l u m e of 10 rolls a day is reached. N o o b j e c t i v e evidence is appar- e n t l y a v a i l a b l e to suggest the point at w h i c h it m a y become e c o n o m i c a l l y a d v a n t a g e o u s to operate c o n t i n u o u s m a c h i n e processing equipment in a l i b r a r y as against h a v i n g the d e v e l o p i n g w o r k done by a c o m m e r c i a l l a b o r a t o r y . T h e f o l l o w i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s m a y be h e l p f u l : on the basis of 2 5 0 w o r k i n g days a y e a r , 10 rolls per w o r k i n g day a m o u n t to 2 5 0 0 rolls per w o r k i n g y e a r ; if w e assume 800 exposures per 100-foot r o l l at moder- ately l o w r e d u c t i o n , 2 5 0 0 rolls w i l l contain 2,000,000 exposures. A m o n g the libraries s u r v e y e d , o n l y the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s pro- duced o v e r 2,000,000 exposures of n e g a t i v e film per year. T h e p r o d u c t i o n of positive film copies should, of course, be included in such considerations. A m o n g the 13 libraries p r o d u c i n g be- t w e e n 100,000 and 2,500,000 exposures per year each, ten did their o w n p r o c e s s i n g ; of these ten, o n l y the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , the U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at B e r k e l e y , and the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at L o s A n g e l e s used continu- ous machine processing. O f the r e m a i n i n g six libraries e m p l o y i n g the flat reel system, all but t w o f o u n d it to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . O n e l i b r a r y reported to h a v e been " t e m p t e d to c o n v e r t to c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s i n g . " T h e l a r g e s t p r o d u c e r of n e g a t i v e m i c r o f i l m us- ing the flat reel system ( S t i n e m a n ) w a s the N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y ( 1 , 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 ex- p o s u r e s ) . T h e t w o libraries that o w n e d and operated cameras, but had a l l ( o r n e a r l y a l l ) their processing w o r k f a r m e d o u t to c o m m e r c i a l laboratories, w e r e H a r v a r d and the U . S . A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l L i b r a r y . M i c h i g a n w a s the o n l y l i b r a r y p r o d u c i n g over 100,000 exposures a n n u a l l y that o w n e d neither a c a m e r a nor d e v e l o p i n g equipment. A b o u t 800,000 exposures per y e a r ( U . S . A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l L i b r a r y ) w a s appar- e n t l y not too high a v o l u m e f o r h a n d l i n g by a c o m m e r c i a l c o n t r a c t o r . O n the other hand, in one l i b r a r y p r o d u c i n g a b o u t 400,000 exposures per year the staff considered their decision to do its o w n processing by means of S t i n e m a n reels a w i s e one because it enabled them to do w o r k f o r themselves, and they f e l t that c o m m e r c i a l agencies could not q u i c k l y h a n d l e the v a r y i n g types of m a t e r i a l f o r w h i c h their patrons requested m i c r o f i l m . I t u s u a l l y is a d v a n t a g e o u s to develop film w i t h o u t delay near the location of the camera, so that retakes can be q u i c k l y pro- duced b e f o r e the d o c u m e n t s are r e t u r n e d to the shelves or released f o r c i r c u l a t i o n . JULY, 1955 25 7 T A B L E I I I R a t e s for M i c r o f i l m i n g C h a r g e d B y 25 U n i v e r s i t y and Research L i b r a r i e s , 1954 L i b r a r y R a t e s in e f f e c t B o u n d V o l s . P e r E x p o - sure ( F i r s t 100) B o u n d V o l s . P e r E x p o s u r e (over 1000) M a n u - scripts P e r E x p o - sure M i n i - V o l - m u m ume per C h a r g e , I t e m size handled change M i n i - per order C a l i f o r n i a ( B e r k e l e y ) C a l i f o r n i a (Los Angeles) C h i c a g o C o l u m b i a D u k e H a r v a r d H u n t i n g t o n L i b r a r y Illinois John C r e r a r L i b r a r y *Johns H o p k i n s L i n d a H a l l L i b r a r y * * M i c h i g a n M i n n e s o t a N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y * N e w Y o r k L i b r a r y * * N e w b e r r y L i b r a r y O h i o S t a t e P e n n s y l v a n i a P r i n c e t o n * S t a n f o r d U . S. D e p t . o f A g r i c u l t u r e U . S. A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l U . S. L i b r a r y o f Congress **Wisconsin Y a l e 1952 •035 .05 •15 1 . 0 0 1951 •035 .05 •15 1 . 0 0 •03 .05 •25 1 . 0 0 1954 .04 .Of •25 1 . 0 0 1952 .04 .05 •25 1 . n o 1946 •035 1 . 0 0 1954 .07 1 . 5 0 1949 •03 •25 1 . 0 0 1951 .056 1 . 4 0 1953 .04 1 . 0 0 1848 •03 . O l ( 5 0 0 + ) . 5 0 1 . 2 5 1948 •0 35 . 5 0 1 . 0 0 1954 •03 . 0 2 ( 5 0 0 + ) 1 . 5 0 1950 .04 . 0 3 (IOOO + ) . 0 5 i .OO •25 1 . 0 0 1948 .05 •75 •75 1954 •03 •5o •25 . 5 0 1949 •03 •25 1 . 0 0 1947 .04 1 . 0 0 1936 •°3 1952 •°35 . 0 5 •15 1945 .04*** 1 . 0 0 1943 .02 . 0 3 ( I O O O + ) •5o .50 1952 .04 . 0 3 ( I O O O + ) • 0 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1954 Qg**** . 0 3 ( l 2 5 + ) 2 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 1952 . 0 4 1 . 0 0 . 10 1 . 0 0 * Microfilming rates established b y non-library campus laboratory. * * Microfilming rates established by commercial laboratory. * * * $1.00 for each 50 pages or fraction thereof. * * * * $.04 per page. I I . P R I C E S FOR M I C R O F I L M V A R I A T I O N S I N R A T E S T h e r a t e s c h a r g e d f o r m i c r o f i l m v a r i e d f r o m 20 t o 70 p e r e x p o s u r e , w i t h a m e d i a n of 3 . 5 0 a n d a m o d e of 40. R a t e s v a r i e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t y p e of m a t e r i a l p h o t o - g r a p h e d a n d t h e l e n g t h of i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s . M a n u s c r i p t s o r loose sheets cost 50 per e x - p o s u r e . Q u a n t i t y r a t e s w e r e q u o t e d in 5 i n s t a n c e s , t h e r a t e s r a n g i n g f r o m 10 to 30 per e x p o s u r e f o r m i n i m u m r u n s of 1 2 5 , 500, o r 1 0 0 0 e x p o s u r e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . P r a c t i c e s v a r i e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o c h a r g e s p e r i t e m h a n d l e d , f o r v o l u m e a n d s i z e c h a n g e s , m i n - i m u m c h a r g e s per o r d e r , c h a r g e s f o r reels a n d b o x e s , a n d m i n i m u m c h a r g e s f o r post- a g e a n d m a i l i n g . M i n i m u m c h a r g e s p e r o r d e r w e r e g e n e r a l l y $ 1 . 0 0 o r u p . S e l e c t e d d e t a i l s a r e s h o w n in T a b l e I I I . T h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n f r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of t h e c o n s u m e r is h o w m u c h m i c r o - filming w i l l cost h i m . F o r i n s t a n c e , if he w i s h e s t o p u r c h a s e 3 b o o k s of 6 0 0 p a g e s e a c h o n m i c r o f i l m , t h e p r i c e s m a y v a r y f r o m $ 1 0 . 5 0 t o $ 4 7 . 5 0 , d e p e n d i n g u p o n w h e t h e r he o r d e r s the f i l m f r o m o n e l i b r a r y a t t h e r a t e of 1 c e n t p e r e x p o s u r e f o r r u n s of 5 0 0 a n d m o r e p l u s $ . 5 0 f o r e a c h v o l u m e h a n - d l e d , o r w h e t h e r he o r d e r s it f r o m t h e c o m - 264 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES m e r c i a l l a b o r a t o r y that handles m i c r o f i l m - i n g f o r a n o t h e r l i b r a r y at the rate of 5 cents per e x p o s u r e ; the same o r d e r f r o m a third l i b r a r y w o u l d cost about $ 3 9 . 1 5 and f r o m a f o u r t h one, $28.50. If w e take as a second e x a m p l e an o r d e r of 10 articles in d i f f e r e n t j o u r n a l s , each about 14 pages l o n g , i n v o l v - i n g a t o t a l of 7 0 exposures, the a v e r a g e ( m e d i a n ) cost w o u l d be a b o u t $ 5 . 2 5 ; b u t some libraries w o u l d c h a r g e as l i t t l e as $3.00 and 7 w o u l d c h a r g e $ 1 0 . 0 0 or m o r e . A consumer f a m i l i a r w i t h these v a r i a t i o n s can achieve savings if the d o c u m e n t to be micro- filmed is located in d i f f e r e n t libraries. 8 C O S T A N A L Y S I S T h e existence of such v a r i a t i o n s in rates raises the question as to the f a c t o r s that should enter into the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of rates. T w o libraries a d m i t t e d t h a t their intention had m e r e l y been to keep their prices in line w i t h those of similar institutions. O t h e r s looked upon m i c r o f i l m i n g as a service to re- search, j u s t i f y i n g it on the same g r o u n d s as i n t e r l i b r a r y loans, and did not expect to m a k e income m a t c h expenses. A third g r o u p f e l t t h a t m i c r o f i l m i n g service should be self- sustaining, b u t non-profit. T h e libraries c l a i m i n g t h a t their m i c r o f i l m laboratories w e r e s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g w e r e L i n d a H a l l and the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . A t the U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , all expenses of the D e p a r t m e n t of P h o t o g r a p h i c R e p r o d u c t i o n , except time spent by the g e n e r a l l i b r a r y staff in collect- i n g and d e l i v e r i n g the materials, w e r e re- ported to be paid f r o m c u r r e n t earnings. A m o n g a l l the respondents, 11 claimed that their prices took a c c o u n t of the time spent by the l i b r a r y staff in v e r i f y i n g and collect- i n g the d o c u m e n t s and b o o k k e e p i n g ; 13 re- ported that they did not consider such costs in d e t e r m i n i n g their prices. In one case, 8 See also: ( a ) E s t h e r M . Schlundt, " S e r v i c e s A v a i l - able f r o m L a r g e L i b r a r i e s , " Special Libraries, X L V ( N o v e m b e r , 1 9 5 4 ) , 375-83; ( b ) Directory of Microfilm Services in the United States and Canada ( r e v . e d . ; N e w Y o r k ; Special L i b r a r y Association, 1 9 4 7 ) . u n i v e r s i t y r e g u l a t i o n s a p p a r e n t l y m a d e it impossible to c r e d i t e a r n i n g s to the l i b r a r y b u d g e t . T h e l a r g e r the operation, the g r e a t e r the chances of p l a c i n g m i c r o f i l m i n g services on a self-sustaining basis. Precise m a t c h i n g of income w i t h expenses is perhaps unnecessary if the p r o d u c t i o n of m i c r o f i l m is considered in the same class as l i b r a r y reference or c i r c u l a t i o n service, w h i c h are c u s t o m a r i l y g i v e n f r e e of c h a r g e to the clientele of a l i b r a r y . O n e respond- ent r e p r e s e n t i n g a l i b r a r y that c h a r g e d a r e l a t i v e l y l o w rate expressed the f o l l o w i n g v i e w : " W e do not in a n y w a y a t t e m p t to c o r r e l a t e the salaries of the t w o operators w i t h prices c h a r g e d either f o r m i c r o f i l m or photostat. T h e w h o l e t h i n g is looked upon as a service u n i t . " I t has also been a r g u e d t h a t f r e e m i c r o f i l m i n g service can be j u s t i - fied as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the a d v a n c e m e n t of k n o w l e d g e . Seidell, the o r g a n i z e r of the m i c r o f i l m service of the A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l L i b r a r y s t a t e d : " I f , as m i g h t be expected, the operation of a f r e e m i c r o f i l m service results in a v e r y g r e a t increase in the a m o u n t of w o r k a l i b r a r y is c a l l e d upon to p e r f o r m , this w o u l d simply be an evi- dence of the increasing use being m a d e of the resources of that l i b r a r y and an indica- tion that the l i b r a r y is f u l f i l l i n g to a g r e a t e r degree the purposes f o r w h i c h it exists. T h e a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s to support such a m e r i t o r i - ous extension of l i b r a r y a c t i v i t y should not be difficult to o b t a i n . " 9 A c t u a l l y no l i b r a r y has established c o m p l e t e l y free m i c r o f i l m i n g service, a l t h o u g h the service p r o v i d e d by the A r m e d F o r c e s M e d i c a l L i b r a r y is a free service of a sort, since m i c r o f i l m of mate- rials n o t a v a i l a b l e l o c a l l y is supplied f r e e to those w h o r e t u r n it w i t h i n 90 days. T o w h a t e x t e n t such a quasi-free service is " e x - ploited by m i n o r i t y of u s e r s , " as F u s s i e r f e a r e d , 1 0 is not k n o w n . 9 A t h e r t o n Seidell, " T h e Cost of Microfilm C o p y i n g in L i b r a r i e s , " Journal of Documentary Reproduction, I V ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 167- 10 F u s s i e r , op. cit., p. 60. JULY, 1955 311 25 7 If a microfilming laboratory is to operate on a self-sustaining basis, the f o l l o w i n g fac- tors w o u l d enter into the determination of rates: ( i ) L a b o r cost in camera w o r k , developing, and inspecting of f i l m ; ( 2 ) sup- plies; ( 3 ) the cost of correspondence, pack- ing, shipping, billing, accounting; and ( 4 ) equipment depreciation. G e n e r a l l y ex- cluded f r o m consideration in noncommercial operations are such overhead costs as space rental, building maintenance, w a t e r , heat, electricity, and telephone service. C o n t r o - versial items are the cost of reference service (bibliographic identification and determina- tion of call numbers) and circulation service (locating volumes on the shelves, transporting them to and from the labora- t o r y ) . 1 1 I I I . Q U E S T I O N S T h e survey w a s merely intended to sup- ply a f e w descriptive data on existing micro- filming services of large A m e r i c a n univer- sity and research libraries. It was not in- tended to supply definitive answers to all questions that could be raised in connection w i t h microfilming services. A useful pur- pose might be served if certain unanswered questions w e r e briefly listed as an appendix: ( 1 ) W h y do some of the large university and research libraries provide no services 1 1 For additional discussions of cost factors, see (a) W . Janicki, " C o s t Estimating and Cost Annlysis in Reproduction W o r k , " Federation Internation-le ile Doc- umentation ( F . I . D . ) Communications. X I I T . facs. 3 :C30-C35; (b) Seidell, op. cit., pp. 16J-167: ( c ) Fuss- ier, op. cit., p. 60; (d) Ralph R. Shaw. "Hibliofilm Serv- ice of the U . S . Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , " Journal of Documentary Reproduction, V (1942), 198-208. of their own? Should not all of them be expected to provide microfilming services? (2) W h y are libraries not exploiting the full production potential of their labora- tories? W h a t further cooperative meas- ures could be taken to provide all existing laboratories with enough microfilm work to keep their machines and employees fully oc- cupied on a continuing basis? (3) W h y do some libraries find the use of manually operated flat reel systems for developing of microfilm satisfactory and others not? Have techniques been de- veloped in connection with the use of flat reel systems that are not known to all laboratory technicians? (4) W h a t are the advantages of having microfilm developed by a commercial lab- oratory as against having the developing done in the library's own laboratory by means of manually operated system? (5) W h a t volume of production is re- quired before the use of continuous ma- chine processing equipment for developing of microfilm can be recommended? (6) H o w can the existing variations in prices charged for microfilm by libraries be explained? W h a t factors should enter into the determination of prices? W h y should laboratories attempt to operate on a self-sustaining basis? (7) Should libraries not make a clear distinction between (a) the production of long runs for purposes of preservation and condensation and (b) the production of short runs as a current service comparable to circulation? (8) Would libraries not find it advis- able to reduce the prices for short runs of microfilm regardless of cost? H o w low must prices be before libraries can substi- tute microfilm for interlibrary loans in all cases? Conference Placement Service During the Philadelphia Conference, a simplified Contact Placement Clearing House will be available to employers and to librarians interested in changing positions. For details, see the May ALA Bulletin, pegs 223. 266 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES