Re-Evaluation of Microfilm As a Method of Book Storage

EVER SINCE THE INTRODUCTION of microfilm into library work librarians have harbored the hope that its use might lead to a reduction of storage costs. These hopes have not been realized, excep~ in_ certain high-rental areas by organizatiOns such as law offices or some special libraries. From time to time estimates have been made comparing the cost of conversion to microfilm as against that of retaining originals, and these have always come out in favor of the originals unless some additional conside~ation was introduced, such as acquisitiOn, preservation, or avoidance of the cost of binding. A ~articularly important study of this question was reported by Pritsker and Sadler1 in 1957 in an article whose title has suggested that of the present account. These authors concluded that "On a cost basis, microfilm is feasible as a form of storage for a large collection only if librarians are willing to accept a high reductio~ ratio, little or no inspection of the finished product, an image less perfect than could be obtained by using a 35mm. planetary camera, and the destruction of the text. If a positive copy of the film is required, the cost of microfilm storage is prohibitive."2 However, the Pritsker and Sadler arti~le left some unanswered questions. Most Important, perhaps, of these was: What would happen if the cost of the master negative should be shared among a number of subscribers to service copies? Would this so alter the situation that