> From: Roger Scanland
> Subject: Reasons For Poor Microfilm Quality
The following are the usual reasons why microfilm from the LDS
Family History Library and its branches -- or film from other sources,
for that matter -- are sometimes of less than optimum quality.
1. MICROFILMS PRODUCED DURING THE EARLIEST DAYS OF MICROFILMING
TECHNOLOGY. In the late 1930s through the 1950s, with a new
technology and an entire world of records to choose from, agencies
such as the Family History Library and various national archives began
their filming. Naturally, the most-used and most valuable records
were filmed first--when the quality was at its worst! (: ( However,
both the LDS Church and the U.S. National Archives have done some
selective refilming. Perhaps some other agencies have, also. Just
don't expect any agency to undertake refilming on a massive basis.
2. FADED INK. Some census takers, in particular, economised by using
ink of poor quality, or by watering it down.
3. POOR TYPEWRITTERS AND RIBBONS. Some records were typed on
poorly-maintained typewriters, using ribbons whose useful days were
long gone. Record-keeping agencies are usually underfunded. More
about that in a minute.
4. BRITTLE PAPER. A good quality of paper is normally used in the
printed books designed for recording of official records. However,
many of the most valuable genealogical records were not kept in such
volumes. Local governments on the U.S. frontier were sometimes
fortunate to have any kind of consistent paper supply. Some records
were kept on paper that has a high acid content. As the years passed,
this paper becomes brittle and unless treated, will eventually fall to
pieces.
5. POOR ARCHIVAL CONDITIONS. Archives, particularly state and local
ones, are chronically underfunded. That means their holdings are
often poorly housed in regard to dust, light, moisture, mold, and
overly compacted conditions Due to understaffing, problems that arise
must often be ignored. Some of the "archival" conditions that exist
in the United States are almost enough to make you cry. The situation
in less prosperous countries is often worse.
6. POOR CONDITION UPON RECEIPT. The records may have been received
in water-stained, faded, fragmentary or worn condition when they
arrived at the archives.
7. POOR MICROFILMING CONDITIONS. Some of the Family History
Library's records were microfilmed under circumstances that should be
told in a good movie or book. The same may be true for some
microfilmers working for other organizations. Imagine carting a film
camera, cans of microfilm and other materials and a portable power
generator by donkey to a village in the mountains of Italy. Then it's
up several flights of stairs to an unlit, unventilated (and it's the
middle of the summer) attic in an old building. Now, set up your
power generator and have at it!
8. RESTRICTIVE ARCHIVAL REGULATIONS. Some tightly bound volumes wer
filmed at archives that would not allow the volumes to be disbound for
filming, due to the cost, the extensive labor involved, or the fragile
condition of the volumes. The result, of course, is microfilmed pages
that are hard to read at the center of the volume.
9. RECORDS AVAILABLE ONLY BY PURCHASING EXISTING MICROFILMS. The
Family History Library and other organizations often purchase
microfilms rather than producing them themselves. This happens for a
variety of reasons: The archives may do its own microfilming or have
it done by a commercial microfilmer. In these situations the archives
may be unwilling or contractually unable to allow an additional
filming to be done as long as it is possible to read the existing
films.
10. HASTY FILMING. Some microfilmers are paid by the page or frame.
This is done to ensure value for the money, but can tempt some
microfilmers beyond what they can bear. Excessive haste is more
likely to be a problem when the original records are loose papers
housed in packets tied up with string. The filmer must undo the
string, take out the records, arrange them on the microfilming surface
in the order in which they were housed in the packet, then do the
filming, then stack the records in the same order, re-insert them in
the packet and tie it back up.
11. POOR QUALITY CONTROL WHEN DEVELOPING THE MICROFILM OR REPRODUCING
COPIES FROM THE MASTER NEGATIVE. Organizations such as the National
Archives and the Family History Library have quality control
standards, but people do sometimes make mistakes.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SUGGESTIONS
1. Take your time and re-read. When you can't make out an entry, it
sometimes helps to leave it for awhile and come back to it.
2. Use a magnifying glass.
3. If the image is out of focus, try a machine with a less powerful
lens. The image will be smaller but it may also be clearer.
4. Some film readers have a stronger and a weaker light setting; try
both.
5. Try placing a sheet of colored paper on the projection surface.
6. Try using a reader that is located in the darkest part of the
room.
7. Check the glass plates on the film reader. They may be scratched
or dirty.
8. Get permission to turn out the lights near you if this is
possible.
9. Check with a staff member to see if a better quality copy can be
obtained.
10. If none of these work, you may need to hire a researcher who has
access to the original volumes (unfortunately not possible with U.S.
census films and some other records).
---=> Roger Scanland, Dynix Library Consultant