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