College and Research Libraries By C L A R E N C E S. P A I N E Microfilm in the Small College Library Mr. Paine, librarian, Beloit College Li- brary, presented this paper at a meeting of the College Libraries Section of the Asso- ciation of College and Reference Libraries, December 29, 1941. DE S P I T E recent marked advances in microphotography and microprint techniques, the time when a student or faculty member will come to the loan desk of the college library to borrow Berlin Diary for home reading and go out with a three-inch reel of sixteen or thirty-five millimeter film or a three by five card size microprint edition, is far distant. There is nothing yet to replace a real paper book for reading one's self to sleep, despite the promises of at least one com- pany to bring out a special projector to hang over the bed. A review of the literature which has appeared in the field of photographic re- production and projection as it concerns the librarian through the period of 1936- 41 reveals some 450 articles, with no more than three or four purporting to consider microfilm from the standpoint of the small college library. Nor, for that matter, are there more than a very few having to do with administrative problems in any li- brary. Most of the literature thus far has been in the field of technical developments. T h i s is a natural trend in a technical field in which developments, if not origins, are so recent. Those who are most active in the field are either photographic tech- nicians or librarians who have become in- terested in the technical developments to the exclusion, for the time being at least, of the administrative aspects. W h a t Herman Fussier wrote in 1938 is apparently still true: Much time on the part of librarians has been spent during the past few years in deal- ing with purely technical matters. If microphotography as low-priced reproduc- tion is really to fulfill its apparent poten- tialities, there must be some bed-rock planning and consideration first, and the librarians must assume the obligation, for investigators are too much concerned with their own individual subject fields to con- sider scholarly documentation as a whole. The technicians, likewise, have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to direct the path of the new technique. . . If we may judge from the literature on the subject which followed, college librarians did not take up this challenge. It was our belief that only research insti- tutions could afford this luxury. Nor was this concept of microphotography as a luxury entirely without grounds, for turn- ing again to M r . Fussier, we find " I f $50 is invested, the results may be worth that amount, but . . . they will, of course, not be what a laboratory costing $5000 or 1 Fussier, H. H. " C o l l e g e Microfilming and Equip- ment. . . . " A.L.A. Bulletin 32:820-22, Oct. 15, 1938. 224 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES more can produce."2 A s if this mention of some figure lying vaguely between $50 and $5000 were not sufficient to frighten any budget-conscious college librarian, M r . Fussier goes on to list cameras with sup- plementary lens, home-rigged copying stand, developing tank, hand viewer or semi-home-rigged projector, and a few accessories such as bottles, safe light, bal- ance, a graduate, fifty-foot capacity reels, three mixing tanks, Stineman reels, print- ers, enlargers, splicers, rewinders, etc. T h i s was the technician, trying valiantly to interest the college librarian in embark- ing upon a microfilm program in his li- brary. N o one has contributed more to technical knowledge of microphotography for libraries than M r . Fussier, but appar- ently the information which he has given us has fallen upon deaf ears. Recognition for the College Library O f the few authorities on college library administration who have produced books on that subject during this five-year period, Miss M c C r u m , in 1937, is the only one who, to my knowledge, has granted micro- photography any recognition as a legiti- mate part of the college library.3 For the most part, in the literature of college librarianship and microphotography there are to be found only a few high- sounding generalities such as " F o r as the gift of Gutenberg brought many books within the reach of many men, so any book may come to any library through the medium of the microphotograph." T h e chief difficulty seems to have been the belief that microphotography and the use of microfilm were inseparable. O f the 2 F u s s i e r , H. H . " M i c r o p h o t o g r a p h y for Smaller L i b r a r i e s . " A.L.A. Bulletin 31:41-42, Jan. 1937. 3 M c C r u m , B. P . An Estimate of Standards for a College Library. J o u r n a l i s m L a b o r a t o r y P r e s s , 1937, P. 132. former it has been said, "Reproduction of such material on request is, of course, self- supporting and therefore not a liability to the library but a definite asset to prestige." T h a t it would be the latter I do not doubt, but considering the small volume of such reproduction which would be called for from the average college library and that the original cost of the reproduction equip- ment and laboratory must be amortized, the field of microphotography is not one in which any of us can afford to i n d u l g e — to charge off an expenditure of several thousand dollars, or even several hundred, to the prestige account is apt to bring the auditors on the run. Separation of Microphotography and Microfilm Even Miss M c C r u m failed to recognize that microphotography and the use of microfilm can be separated insofar as library administration is concerned. In the "checklist of building requirements" which she appended to her book, there is no entry under microfilm, but under microphotography we find ". . . Space and equipment for making and using film and photostats. Plumbing for developing room. Provide for growth in this depart- ment." More fanciful authors have gone so far as to suggest to the college librarian the filming of the card catalog as economy of space and insurance against loss by fire or flood. Even at a minimum cost of one half cent per card, this would seem to be rather expensive insurance when we figure the chances of destruction of the card catalog, by these or other means, especially when the film copy would be out-dated before it was ever completed. Moreover, recent experiments and developments in a microphotographic charging system, JUNE j 1942 225 though undoubtedly practical in some situ- ations, are not steps which the average college library can justify. Such schemes, along with the failure of most authorities to distinguish between microphotography, with its expensive equipment and laboratories, and the use of microfilm, have undoubtedly been major factors in the college librarians' ap- parent failure to recognize the potential place of film as a solution to at least some of their administrative problems. In this paper I do not propose to assume any psychic powers in order to tell you what your problem is and how microfilm can solve it. N o one but you can pretend to understand your immediate problems or propose their solution. Neither can I tell you all about microfilm and its read- ing equipment; and, if I could, it would be useless duplication of literature already in existence, from the hands of more com- petent authorities. M y purpose shall be only to state one problem of library ad- ministration and, by presenting alternative solutions, to demonstrate that under cer- tain conditions microfilm has a place in the college library. Newspapers Briefly stated, the problem is news- papers. O u r files comprise the local pa- pers, including the college paper, from 1847 to date, and the New York Times from 1913 to date. A t least half are pulp paper. A s in all such collections, the problem is inherently t w o f o l d ; namely, the prevention of deterioration of the paper stock itself and the provision of adequate and accessible storage and reading room space. T h e traditional solution of the first phase of the problem would be the preser- vation of the originals by some process, varying from the covering with Japanese tissue at a cost of seven or eight cents per sheet, to lamination with cellulose acetate at a cost of about fifteen to twenty cents per sheet. W i t h an estimated minimum of 175,000 pages, or 87,500 sheets, in the files of the local newspapers alone, the im- mediate cost to be anticipated would range from $6125 to $17,400. These figures do not take into consideration the rebinding costs and the added storage space necessi- tated by the increased bulk resulting from any known preservative process. Nor are we, for the moment, even considering the overwhelming task of taking any steps toward processing the New York Times, 1913 to date. In the second phase of our problem, we are confronted with an estimated total of 6250 cubic feet tied up in newspaper files, traffic, and reading room space, with all available shelf and building space already occupied. Space Requirements T h e New York Times and our local newspapers in bound form require thirty- five cubic feet of shelf space annually. T o provide adequate shelving and traffic space at this rate of expansion for a period of twenty-five years would require the im- mediate addition to our building of a room fifteen by twenty feet at an estimated cost of $3000, or $1 per cubic foot—and this without any regard to architectural con- tinuity. Shelving would cost from $1000 to $2000, depending upon whether ordi- nary steel storage or roller type were pur- chased. Summarizing briefly, if the foregoing solution were adopted, including process- ing of the local papers and the provision of building space and shelving for the next twenty-five years, an immediate expendi- 226 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES ture of $10,125 to $22,400 would have to be made. Ij; J] Microfilm presents the only alternative solution. It is with the adequacy and economy of this alternative that the re- mainder of this paper is concerned. T h e first question with which we are confronted is that of the durability of microfilm. W e know that the new safety microfilm is less subject to destruction by fire than is paper, in that the former will burn only so long as it is in contact with flame from another source. It is obvious that it is easier to provide fireproof stor- age for film than for the originals, which might require as much as 98 per cent more space. W e are reasonably sure, according to the U . S . Bureau of Standards,4 that, stored under proper conditions of humid- ity, cellulose acetate ( " s a f e t y " ) microfilm can be expected to last as long as the best rag paper. Legality of Film Copies Another question pertaining to film copies to which we must give some thought is that of the legality of such copies; in other words, are materials on microfilm 4 U . S . B u r e a u of S t a n d a r d s . Miscellaneous Pub- lication M162. W a s h i n g t o n , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of D o c u - m e n t s , 1939. A f e w i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s , a m o n g t h e m D r . J o s e p h B r o a d m a n , h a v e t a k e n e x c e p t i o n to t h e B u r e a u of S t a n d a r d s ' r e p o r t . T h e b o n e of c o n t e n t i o n , b r i e f l y s t a t e d , is t h a t t h e b u r e a u , w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t n i t r a t e s in films a r e h a r m f u l , h a s at t h e s a m e t i m e p u b l i s h e d t h e a b o v e findings as to t h e p e r m a n e n c y of c e l l u l o s e a c e t a t e film i n w h i c h s o m e t r a c e s of n i t r a t e s a r e to be f o u n d . I n c o n c l u d i n g , D r . B r o a d m a n g o e s on t o a s k , " . . . I s t h e P a p e r S e c t i o n of t h e B u r e a u of S t a n d a r d s t r u l y a n a g e n c y f o r t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n [ o f ] s c i e n t i f i c f a c t s o r m e r e l y a s e r v a n t f o r t h e b i g film c o m p a n i e s ? O r is t h e b u r e a u m e r e l y t r y i n g to m a k e t h e best of a b a d s i t u a t i o n s i n c e so m a n y i n s t i t u - t i o n s , a n d e v e n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n m e n t , h a v e i n v e s t e d l a r g e s u m s i n films?" I d o not w i s h to m i n i m i z e t h e p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e q u e s t i o n w h i c h h a s b e e n r a i s e d b y D r . B r o a d m a n , w h o is him- s e l f t h e i n v e n t o r a n d p r o d u c e r on a c o m m e r c i a l b a s i s o f a p r o c e s s of p a p e r p r e s e r v a t i o n w h i c h is n o t w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h i s is p r i m a r i l y a q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , f o r t e c h n i c i a n s . I n t h e m e a n t i m e w e c a n at l e a s t be s u r e t h a t , u n d e r p r o p e r s t o r a g e c o n d i t i o n s , o u r m i c r o f i l m c o p i e s w i l l o u t l a s t o u r old p u l p p a p e r , a n d s h o u l d o u r s u c c e s s o r s d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e films w e r e d e t e r i o r a t i n g , n e w p o s i t i v e s c o u l d b e m a d e at a m i n i m u m cost. preserved or merely reproduced? In the filming of certain types of material, es- pecially those which might conceivably be referred to for legal purposes such as business records, vital statistics, or other archival and primary source materials, the admissibility of such copies as evidence, in the absence of the original document, has been considered. In an opinion handed down by the United States Court of Ap- peals in the case of the United States of America, Plaintiff, vs Martin T . Manton and George M . Spector, Defendants, it was held that such photographic records (in this case, of cancelled checks) consti- tute not secondary but primary evidence as proof of payment.5 T h i s does not mean that there remains no further ques- tion of the legality of film copies, but as far as newspapers and perhaps other ma- terials in the library are concerned, there would seem to be no reason for hesitation in discarding the originals for film copies in the interests of more efficient storage and preservation. Having concluded that microfilm of- fered the legitimate medium for the preser- vation of newspaper files, our next problem was one of sources and costs of photog- raphy. Several alternatives were immedi- ately apparent. First, the library might purchase outright or rent the necessary equipment from the Recordak Corporation and employ an operator. Second, a con- tract could be entered into with the East- man subsidiary, under which the library would ship the materials to be photo- graphed to the company's plant, where all of the work would be done. T h i r d , we might find a professional operator properly equipped for microphotography and near enough to make it possible to set up a 0 " L e g a l i t y of M i c r o - F i l m R e c o r d s . " Journal of Documentary Reproduction 3:79-80, M a r . 1940. JUNE j 1942 22 7 camera in our building, or to whom we could get the materials to be filmed with- out elaborate packing and high transporta- tion costs. Obviously, the criteria for choosing from the above methods must be the quality of work obtainable and costs. First Method Discarded T h e first of these methods was discarded because to amortize equipment costs would have raised the price of filming to a figure in excess of that received on bids from the commercial sources. In addition, if a library undertakes to do its own filming, it must assume the responsibility for good copies. A n d the statement of the Re- cordak Corporation that it takes little or no experience to take microfilm pictures because the experience has been built into the equipment itself is only applicable in filming uniform materials in which there is no variation in the size or type of paper and the intensity of the impression from one sheet to the next. One authority has said "the reproduction or the control of tone values is as important in copying as it is in pictorial photography."6 Y o u will never realize this so well as when you have obtained a poor film copy of some long- sought bit of source material. A s for the costs and quality of work to be expected from either of the com- mercial sources, w e discovered that there was no appreciable difference between the two, and the deciding factor was purely that of convenience. Costs will be found to vary with the volume of work to be done and type of material to be photo- graphed. For the filming of our local newspaper files a figure of two and one half cents per page, or a maximum of 0 T o w n s e n d , A g n e s . " F i l m C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " Jour- nal of Documentary Reproduction i :346-53, F a l l 1938. $4375 was estimated. T h i s represents a saving of not less than 30 per cent over the cheapest possible preservation by any other means, and instead of an increase in bulk, would permit a 98 per cent reduc- tion over the storage space now required. So far as the current and future files of the New York Times and the local paper are concerned, if obtained on film, the immediate need for an addition to our building would be obviated. Requisite Reading and Storage Equipment But microfilm of any material in the library makes requisite certain reading and storage equipment. Investigations in this direction led us to the conclusion that there was only one satisfactory all-purpose reading machine with the necessary sim- plicity of operation for library usage. I refer to the Recordak Library Film Reader, Model C , at a price of $380, equipped with writing table. T h e superi- ority of this machine, except for reading short strips of film not on reels, is so obvious that we will not discuss it further here, except to warn that, if you plan to embark upon any extensive use of micro- film in your library, you must have a machine so easily operated as not to dis- courage patrons in their use of it. T o assure the greatest degree of perma- nency of microfilm, it must be stored under conditions of a constant humidity from 50 to 52 per cent. For this purpose there are two competitive steel filing cabinets on the market today; one, at a cost of $125, the other, at a cost of $167.50. T h e first of these depends for its humidity control upon an asbestos block to which water is added when the humidity gauge on the outside drops below 50 per cent. T h e more expensive of the cabinets, manufac- tured by Remington Rand, appears to be 228 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES more adequately insulated and depends f o r its humidity control upon certain chemical crystals w h i c h maintain a constant humid- ity w i t h i n the cabinet by g i v i n g off mois- ture w h e n the humidity drops below 50 per cent and absorbing moisture w h e n it rises above 52 per cent. F o r year-round usage in v e r y dry climates, in any climate d u r i n g that part of the year in w h i c h the building is heated, or in airconditioned buildings, the cheaper of these cabinets w o u l d seem to be adequate. H o w e v e r , in regions w h e r e d u r i n g the spring, summer, and f a l l the prevailing humidity is in excess of 50 per cent, I do not see h o w any reduction can be effected w i t h i n the w a t e r - c o n t r o l l e d type of cabinet. T h e film capacity of both cabinets is the same, sufficient for sixteen years of the film edi- tion of the New York Times. I n other w o r d s , t w o of these cabinets, costing $335, w i l l house more of the Times on film than could be housed in original f o r m in a $4000 addition to our building. Microfilm for Newspaper Files B y m a k i n g use of microfilm the solution to the problem of our newspaper files re- quires a m a x i m u m expenditure of $5050, as against some amount r a n g i n g f r o m $ 1 0 , 1 2 5 to $22,400 by any other effective means of preservation and storage. Such figures present a picture that every college business officer and trustee w i l l under- stand, and yet even f o r a problem as pressing as this $5000 cannot o f t e n be readily c o n j u r e d up f r o m the income of the average small college. O u r o w n ex- perience, h o w e v e r , has demonstrated that the reading and storage equipment neces- sary f o r film, and probably the filming itself, holds more gift-appeal to alumni and other interested groups than l o n g ranges of steel shelving. H a v i n g acquired, by g i f t , a R e c o r d a k M o d e l C reader, a Students M i c r o f i l m R e a d e r , and one controlled humidity cabi- net, our first step w a s to convert our subscription f r o m the bound edition of the New York Times to the film edition, thereby immediately eliminating any need f o r the construction of a newspaper stor- age room. B y these same acquisitions, the w a y is opened to a project f o r filming early files of the Beloit papers w h i c h w e expect to get under w a y this year, w i t h the financial aid of interested local persons and organizations. W h e n that job is com- pleted, w e w i l l have not only assured the continued existence of valuable source ma- terials but w i l l also have released one much-needed room, n o w used f o r storage, for other purposes, and last but not least, w e w i l l have made available hundreds of pounds of paper for national offense. M o r e o v e r , w i t h even this minimum of film reading and storage equipment, the library has opened the w a y f o r an investi- gation by the college of the possible effici- ency and economy of preserving on film its archives from the business, registrar's, and dean's offices. Research in Colleges Still more important, the library has opened the door to this mysterious t h i n g called research—which, f o r lack of library resources in the college, is supposed to be one of the distinguishing features between the college and university f a c u l t y . E v e n honors w o r k may take on n e w significance. F o r n o w , armed w i t h the Special L i b r a r i e s Association's Directory of Microfilm Sources, the catalogs of Southwestern M i c r o f i l m , Incorporated, and other guides, many out-of-print and manuscript ma- terials may be entitled to consideration f o r purchase. JUNE, 1942 229