Message-Id: <mailto:199510302253.QAA23584@library.wustl.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:23:38 +22303754 From: Colin Webb <mailto:cwebb@NLA.GOV.AU> Subject: Microfilm winding To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
Greetings from Australia again!Thanks to all those who responded to my previous question about archival processing and methylene blue testing - I get the distinct impression that everyone in North America is conscientiously testing their preservation microfilm, so I think I need to have a strong word with the bureaux we use here.
Microfilming seems to be like an onion - the more you peel away the more tears you get. We are now involved in a dispute about how microfilm should be wound onto reels - with emulsion in or out? My reading of the standards, RLG Manuals, etc suggests it should be 1st and subsequent odd numbered generations out, 2nd and subsequent even generations in. This suggests that it has something to do with duplication (emulsion to emulsion). The problem we have (and maybe it isn't a problem) is that bureaux here insist that the emulsion should be in on all copies, both to protect the emulsion and for ease of duplicating. That's how they supply it, that's what they believe they should be doing.
As I say, it may not be a problem - it's just that the more we try to specify compliance with standards the more we realise that we don't understand the rationale behind the standard. And the more we find ourselves defending our specs to bureaux.
Any comments, anyone?
Colin Webb
****** Colin Webb ----------------- Manager, Information Preservation T T T T T T T T National Library of Australia I I I I I I I I mailto:cwebb@nla.gov.au I I I I I I I I Phone: +616 262 1381 T T T T T T T T Fax: +616 257 1703 ÿÿÿÿÿÿ "this message reflects my views, not those of NLA" ******