Clarification of Answer by
knowledge_seeker-ga
on
29 May 2003 09:58 PDT
Hi again skt1479-ga,
In keeping within the pricing guidelines of your question, I didn't go
into a lot of detail in your answer.
GOOGLE ANSWERS PRICING GUIDELINES
https://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html
I'm sorry you misunderstood my answer to say that color microfilm is
NEVER USED. I meant for you to understand that, though it may be used,
it is NEVER RECOMMENDED for use as an archival medium and that its
uses in the past have had serious drawbacks.
I did indeed find and read the link you provided before posting my
answer. To quote what you quoted:
"Even at room temperature, it is possible to preserve master
color film as long as 100 years."
The operative term is "100 years." 100 years is not archival for any
purposes. 300 years? Maybe. 500 years? Yes. But not 100.
Also, understand what is meant by "master film". This is not the
microfilm you are looking at when you go to the library. The master
film is the one hidden away in the dark climate-controlled archival
storage location. The one they make the library copies from. You can
be sure the copy you are looking at (whether black and white or color)
will not last 100 years.
Of course there ARE color microfilms of many documents – maps, color
plates, certain historical documents, but in those instances it is
acknowledged that the films are not "permanent" and that they will
have to be replaced as they deteriorate. And in most cases, there also
exists a black and white film of the document which is considered to
be the actual "archival" copy.
The two links you gave me were to the same site -- to an article on
Ilfords Cibachrome Microfilm. This product is now known as Ilfochrome
Classic.
ILFOCHROME CLASSIC
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/ilfoclassic/Iclassic.html
If you go back and read the second paragraph I quoted from the first
reference I cited, you will see I addressed that product as a possible
contender for the use of color microfilm. Additionally, the link I
provided to the article: LIBRARY PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION states:
"Iflochrome, [sic] which may have a life of up to 500 years in the
absence of light, the testing is still incomplete, and color film
cannot be recognized as a preservation medium."
Prior to the advent of Ilfochrome, the best available color format for
microfilm was CHROMOGENIC film or your basic "Kodachrome". This type
of film is what we know as everyday "color film" and has been in use
since Kodak developed it in 1935.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS - Care, Handling, and Storage of Photographs
http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/photolea.html
Although slightly outdated, the below research report gives and
excellent overview on how documents are archived.
" The first of these films was Eastman Kodak’s Kodachrome (1935),
followed closely by Agfa’s Agfacolor films in 1936 and Eastman Kodak’s
Ektachrome films in 1940. Today, all camera films, with the exception
of instant colour films, are based on chromogenic
development…"
THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS IN ARCHIVES
AND LIBRARIES : A RAMP STUDY WITH GUIDELINES
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000586/058641e.pdf
The chromogenic film used in the production of microfilm today is
normally motion picture transparency film. It gives the high
resolution needed to reproduce colors and details when the work is
reduced to microform. It is not however, a long-term solution to
archiving documents.
At this point, I feel I've addressed your further questions regarding
the use of color microfilms.
Now, since you have also questioned the issue of answer quality, I'll
take a second to comment on that point. The key to a successful
answer here is to have researchers who can wade through the vast
volumes of information available online, and take from that the cogent
points that the questioner requires.
You are clearly a regular internet user so are aware that no matter
which side of an argument you want to take, you can find supporting
arguments online. The question is what is the "real" story? We both
know that there is also a lot of bad (or just plain wrong) information
out there. The keys of course are to a) qualify the sources and b)
discern the current state of the art (or state of the argument, as it
were).
For your $2.50 question I reviewed 53 websites (as logged in my
History Folder) over the course of approximately 1 hour 35 minutes.
From those I got a very good sense of the state of the art of
microfilm technology. I then narrowed down those sites to about 10
sites that I felt were reliable and I read them in-depth. From those I
drew your answer. I cited the ones I thought explained the issue in
the simplest and clearest terms.
Had you posted, say a $15 or $20 question, I would have addressed both
sides of the debate (which really isn't a debate – the professionals
are in agreement) on the use of color film for microfiche in more
detail. For $40 or $50 I might have given you a brief history of the
use of microfilm and talked about the specific problems (and
successes) associated with the use of color and older style black and
white microfilms. For $75 or $100 I would given you the details on the
different types of microfilming techniques and explained when and why
the failures occur in each. Included would have been a discussion on
the many causes of film deterioration. And for more than $100 I would
have addressed the entire history of archiving documents in both color
and black and white, with a focus on the development of new
microfilming techniques as well as projections for the future trends
towards digital technology.
I trust however, that what I have provided fulfills your needs at the
price you offered.
-K~
