College and Research Libraries We Chose Microfilm By FRANCES L. MEALS and W A L T E R T . J O H N S O N IN A SURVEY made of a selected group of junior college libraries in 1958,1 it was discovered that only two of the seventy-nine libraries surveyed were us- ing microfilm to any extent as a means of preserving periodicals. T h e survey did reveal much interest in periodicals on microfilm by librarians who would like to use microfilm or who were considering using it. Because of this interest the librarians of the two junior college libraries—Abra- ham Baldwin and Colby—using micro- film to preserve periodicals felt that their experience with this medium might be of value to others. Colby Junior College began using microfilm in 1952, and Abraham Bald- win College began in 1956. Each receives twenty-eight titles on microfilm and both purchase the completed films from com- mercial suppliers rather than attempt- ing to process their own. Baldwin's back periodical file was in very poor shape in 1955. Few items had been bound professionally and back pe- riodicals were kept in home-made bind- ers, in pamphlet boxes, or just tied up. T h a t a binding program needed to be started was increasingly evident, but since the Baldwin Library was in need of space, there was n o room to store the bound items properly. In going through the periodicals selected for possible bind- ing, Baldwin discovered that there were many missing issues which would have to be replaced and thus add to the bind- ing expense. Colby had a back file of bound peri- odicals and had moved into a new build- 1 Henrietta Thomae and W. T . Johnston, " A Survey of a Selected Group of Tunior College Libraries" (Mime- ographed, 1958). Partially published as " A Glance at Tunior College Libraries," The Junior College Journal, X X I X (1958), 195-202. Miss Meals is Librarian, Colby Junior Col- lege, New London, N. H., and Mr. Johnson is Librarian, Abraham Baldwin College, Tifton, Ga. ing in 1950 so that space was not an im- mediate problem, although the cost of building had made Colby well aware of the need to conserve space. Colby was bothered by the proverbial missing is- sues at binding time and had also had the sad experience of some articles being clipped from volumes already bound. T h u s the problem of space led both Colby and Baldwin to consider micro- film, and that was the primary reason that both chose to preserve back issues of periodicals on microfilm. T h e space-saving possibilities of micro- film in actual practice come as some- thing of a shock even after one has seen the promotion pictures of a b o u n d peri- odical together with a reel of microfilm of the same volume showing the reduc- tion in size. A nine-drawer microfilm cabinet using 16.2 cubic feet of space will hold 540 reels of microfilm or some 725 periodical volumes, since many titles come two volumes, or twelve months of issues, to the reel. Regular ten-inch double-faced stack shelving would re- quire 123.7 cubic feet or seven and a half times as much space to hold the same number of volumes. On a square footage basis, the difference is not so great as Figure 1 indicates. T h e missing and mutilated issues problem wras the second reason that both elected to use microfilm. Since the micro- film is supplied in finished form by a commercial firm, one does not have the problem of finding a missing issue to complete a volume. T o date, neither has M A Y 1 9 6 0 223 had an article c l i p p e d f r o m a reel of microfilm, and this seems to be a rather remote possibility since the student does not possess a film reader. C o l b y and Baldwin b o t h considered the cost of microfilm versus binding. M i c r o f i l m runs a b o u t one-fourth cent per page; therefore, the thicker the mag- azine, the higher the cost. B i n d i n g is generally priced according to the height of the magazine with the taller ones cost- ing the most to b i n d . T a b l e 1 gives a rough comparison of b i n d i n g and micro- film costs for five magazines of various thicknesses and heights. T h i s compari- son indicates that b i n d i n g is slightly cheaper. In actual practice, Baldwin and C o l b y have f o u n d that the base price of b i n d i n g and microfilm f o r the n u m b e r of titles each receives works o u t about the same, with microfilm being slightly cheaper. T h e extras—to b o r r o w an auto- m o t i v e term—are what make the differ- ence. N o extras are involved with micro- film except writing and mailing the order, and a one-time standing order can be made. B i n d i n g involves several ex- tras: periodicals must be collated and tied; missing and mutilated issues must be secured through purchase or ex- change; periodicals must be packed for shipment to the bindery and unpacked o n return; and transportation must be paid o n smaller shipments. T h e s e extras cost in staff time if not in money. T h e biggest drawback Baldwin and Colby faced in starting a microfilm pro- gram was the initial cost. Microfilm readers run f r o m $125 up, with $350 being the price of o n e of the better ones. H u m i d i f i e d storage cabinets start at $186, although less adequate storage boxes f o r a few reels of film can be pur- chased for a few dollars. O n e might fig- ure an initial outlay of $500 f o r o n e reader and one h u m i d i f i e d storage cabi- net. A t Baldwin the space-saving feature was used in presenting the budget re- quest f o r the extra $500 necessary to cover the initial e q u i p m e n t cost. Baldwin's need f o r a larger library b u i l d i n g is acute. In 1952 part of the Figure 1 Comparison of floor space required for storage of bound and microfilmed periodicals. BOUND PERIODICAL STORAGE SPACE: 40.5 square feet MICROFILMED PERIODICAL STORAGE SPACE: 8.87 square feet S c a l e : i " = 1 2 2 4 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S T A B L E 1 C O M P A R I S O N OF B I N D I N G A N D M I C R O F I L M C O S T S PERIODICAL ISSUED 12 MONTHS BOUND AS 1 2 MONTHS FILMED A S BINDING COST FOR ONE Y E A R * MICROFILM COST F O R ONE Y E A R F Reader's Digest M o n t h l y 2 vols. 1 reel $ 6 . 5 8 $ 7 . 4 5 Science Digest M o n t h l y 2 vols. 1 reel 6 . 5 8 3 . 5 0 Changing Times M o n t h l y 1 vol. 1 reel 3 . 5 9 2 . 0 0 U. S. News and World Report W e e k l y 4 vols. 2 reels 15.36 2 1 . 0 8 House and Garden M o n t h l y 2 vols. 1 reel 8 . 2 6 6 . 9 7 T O T A L $ 4 0 . 3 7 $ 4 1 . 0 0 * Average of prices of three binderies (excluding transportation charges), f Average of three years 1955 through 1957 (including postage charges). w o r k r o o m was given over to periodical storage and in 1954 a small n o o k was re-partitioned f r o m reading r o o m area to periodical storage area. It was cor- rectly anticipated that microfilm w o u l d prevent the necessity of b o r r o w i n g peri- odical storage area f r o m another floor area f o r several years. Of course, the p o i n t was made to the librarian that an eventual new b u i l d i n g w o u l d solve space problems. T o answer this argument against the high initial cost of microfilm e q u i p m e n t o n e can present figures on space costs. Using Figure 1 as a basis, 40.5 square feet of floor space f o r the storage of b o u n d periodicals will cost at least $445.50 if one uses the low build- ing cost of eleven dollars per square foot. T o this must be added about $175 for nine feet of double-faced ten- inch library-type shelving. Compared with this, the space for the microfilm storage cabinet will cost $97.57 at eleven dollars per square foot, but the space above the fifty-inch high micro- film cabinet can be used f o r some stor- age. A d d i n g $500 initial e q u i p m e n t out- lay to this gives a figure of $597.57 for microfilm storage, compared to $620.50 f o r conventional storage. If the cost of the film reader is omitted, the cost of comparable microfilm storage drops to $283.57. Figure 2 shows this in diagram form. O n e might even g o so far as to add something f o r heating, cooling, lighting, and maintaining the larger space required f o r conventional periodi- cal storage. Consequently, microfilm either means less space needed in a new b u i l d i n g or m o r e space for other pur- poses. Baldwin and C o l b y each elected to se- cure twenty-eight titles o n microfilm al- though each takes many m o r e periodi- cals than this. T h e selection was made o n the basis of whether or not the pub- lication was indexed in the Readers' Guide and h o w frequently back issues were called f o r in the library. T h e r e is little similarity between the microfilm lists of the two libraries. Colby also re- ceives the New York Times on microfilm. Since Baldwin had only a small collection of b o u n d periodicals, it has purchased many back reels to try to complete cer- tain holdings f r o m 1950 on. In selecting equipment, both chose nine drawer humidified film cabinets which are filing-cabinet height. A six- drawer cabinet, which is table-top height and so permits the film reader to be placed o n top, is available, but the nine- drawer cabinet provides m o r e storage space per dollar of cost. C o l b y elected to purchase one of the m o r e expensive readers (about $350 list). Baldwin chose to b u y two cheaper film readers (about $125 each) in order to accommodate two users at once. Baldwin feels that in selecting two of the cheaper M A Y 1 9 6 0 2 2 5 Figure 2 Comparison of cost for storage of bound and microfilmed periodicals BOUND (725 v's.) MICROFILMEP (725 v's.) Cost of floor space at $11 per square foot. Cost of shelving or cabinet. Cost of reader (necessary for use, but not for storage of microfilm). readers instead of one more expensive reader it erred because the expensive readers have m o r e refinements which make them easier to use and less likely to scratch film and they also offer slightly greater magnification. T h e two readers have prevented waiting at times, but Baldwin c o u l d easily have gotten by with one reader about 90 per cent of the time, although the second reader is cur- rently receiving m u c h m o r e usage. Colby presently feels the need for a second reader. Both discovered that the reader may b e placed anywhere in the library, although the best location is a spot where the r o o m light is about the same brightness as the light projected by the reader and the user does not look u p f r o m the reader to face a w i n d o w . Colby plans to revamp its serial cata- loging and so has not yet listed its micro- film holdings in its p u b l i c catalog. Bald- win lists its periodical holdings on cards in a catalog drawer marked "Periodi- cals." T o list periodicals held, Baldwin uses a card bearing v o l u m e numbers and the notation " L i b r a r y has those volumes which are dated." O n the card in call n u m b e r position the symbol PB is used to indicate "Periodicals B o u n d " and P M F is used to indicate "Periodicals on M i c r o f i l m . " W h e r e b o t h b o u n d and microfilm volumes of a title are held, two cards are used with PB items on one and P M F items o n the second. T h i s works well f o r Baldwin since all b o u n d volumes are older than the microfilmed issues. C o l b y follows its open-shelf policy in connection with its microfilm holdings, and a student may g o directly to the file, select the film she needs, and use the reader. Because of its b u i l d i n g arrange- ment and the location of its microfilm storage, Baldwin does not apply its o p e n stack policy to microfilm, and the stu- dent must ask the librarian f o r film. A t Baldwin, in the event the readers are in use, the student fills a request card and is scheduled to use the reader at another time convenient to him. Both C o l b y and Baldwin instruct the student in h o w to use the film reader f o r the first time and check o n his next use to see that he is d o i n g it correctly. Neither attempts to give g r o u p instruction in the use of the reader. T h e disadvantages of microfilm ap- pear to be few. Perhaps the complaint most often heard is made by those look- ing f o r articles o n interior decoration, clothing design, travel, etc., f o r micro- film is black and white and thus color is lost. N o t all periodicals are available on microfilm f r o m commercial suppliers, but 78 per cent of the titles indexed in Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature can be obtained o n microfilm, and Bald- win and C o l b y have f o u n d this sufficient f o r their needs. M i c r o f i l m is usually supplied any- where f r o m several weeks to several months after the periodical year is com- (Continued on page 228) 2 2 6 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S have seen the subscription totals of all of the journals increase sharply; all but o n e are well over the five-hundred mark. T h e Soviet Physics—JETP subscription list n o w approximates one-thousand. Subscription prices n o w range f r o m ap- proximately o n e to two and one-half cents per page, nonprofit academic li- braries taking the lower rate. W h e n related to the benefits of the program, the cover-to-cover translation journals are viewed as a relatively inex- pensive means of acquiring the results of m u c h valuable research. In absolute terms, of course, the program is not with- out its cost. But until such time as a knowledge of Russian is m u c h more widespread or until machine translation is perfected, the most effective method of c o m m u n i c a t i n g Soviet developments to the West w o u l d appear to be by the delivery to the scientist, five to seven months after publication of the originals, the authoritative, complete translations. T h e rising use of the latter points to a firm acceptance of the present transla- tion program by the physicist and the re- search librarian w h o serves him. W e Chose Microfilm (Continued from page 226) plete. Since the paper issues are not sent away for processing as in b i n d i n g , the library always has a c o m p l e t e file avail- able f o r use. Both the C o l b y and Bald- win libraries dispose of the magazines w h i c h have been replaced by microfilm. In c o m p a r i n g notes, C o l b y and Bald- win agree on the advantages and disad- vantages of microfilm except f o r one item. C o l b y feels that films are easier to use since one does n o t have to handle weighty volumes of periodicals. Baldwin considers b o u n d volumes slightly easier to use since the librarian does not have to give instructions in film reader opera- tion and since a page is easier to find than a frame of microfilm. T o see the frame-finding problem, o n e must realize that microfilm is stored o n hundred-foot reels which accommodate twelve issues of m o n t h l y magazines, and in using microfilm o n e always starts at the front of the reel. For example, if the N o v e m - ber issue is wanted, one must reel through January, February, March, etc., to reach N o v e m b e r . T h e experienced microfilm reader soon learns to "watch f o r the cover," which is a single page frame causing a light flick and enabling o n e to count months while w i n d i n g film at a rapid rate, and so find the right m o n t h with a m i n i m u m of time; but fre- quently the b e g i n n i n g microfilm user complains that it takes h i m several min- utes to find the right frame. However, Baldwin considers this a m i n o r com- plaint. O n e unexpected advantage that came to Baldwin and C o l b y f r o m their micro- film programs is that both are able to provide microfilm readers f o r faculty and non-college personnel b o r r o w i n g or buying microfilm materials in connec- tion with research o r graduate study. C o l b y feels that this has made many off- campus p e o p l e friends of its library. T h e librarians of Baldwin and Colby are pleased with the space and money- saving features of microfilm and consider it an excellent solution to many prob- lems involved in keeping and in using back issues of periodicals, especially in the small library which is limited in space, staff, and funds. Most students are intrigued by microfilm and delight in finding opportunities to use it. 2 2 8 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S