MICROFILMING COSTS VERSUS STORAGE OF HARD COPY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73-00402R000100220001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 49
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 7, 1967
• Content Type: MF

,/
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
?. ~. V J
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
RECORDS CENTER CONSTRUCTION STUDY
Microfilming Costs
vs
Storage of Hard Copy
5 6g NO. 7'37 USEPITIONSUS
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
? ?
the fact that although a reel of microfilm saves space, the film process-
ing costs far outweigh the costs to store hard copy.
2. This policy holds that it is to the Agency's advantage, both eco-
nomically and efficiently, to store the hard copy of records that are to
be kept less than 30 years. The exceptions to this rule are those Agency
records already on microfilm or tape as a part of an existing office pro-
cedure. At present some 93,000 reels of such microfilms occupy about 1,200
cubic feet of the Records Center space. Also at the Center is another 150
cubic feet of photo miniturized products (i.e., aperture cards, minicards,
microfiche, and so forth).
3. Costs for microfilming as stated in the attached price lists by
GSA and our Printing Services Division (Tabs A and B) range from about X8.00
to $80.00 to microfilm two thousand images. (In papers that equals one foot
or one-half safe drawer or 2,000 sheets.) The low figure relates to an
automatic rotary camera handling index cards of all the same quality or tone,
size, color, and thickness of paper without any staples, fasteners, or
folded or torn items. The higher cost is for planetary cameras and hand
processing of several sizes, typing tones, and varieties of paper in a foot
of ordinary files. A commercial contractor's charges will total at least
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
y ? r ?
r
twice these costs. Our Staff, like National Archives, and Atomic Energy,
uses a microfilming cost figure of $20 per foot of files ($10 per 1,000
images) as our average for estimations.
~+. The cost to build the Records Center in 1954 and the addition in
1957 totaled $662,117 including the shelving. The storage capacity at
present is 106,800 cubic feet or an average cost of $6.20 per cubic foot
of storage space.
5? Consequently, as a point of departure, we can calculate the cost
for a given amount of records in storage or microfilm. For example; to
Center
store 1,000 cubic feet of hard copy in the ~ at $6.20 per cubic foot
costs $6,200.
6. To film 1,000 cubic feet of hard copy at the lowest rotary camera
figure of $8.00 per cubic foot cost $8,000. But the space savings is tre-
mendous. About 3,000 images fit on one 100-foot reel of 16mm film; and
100 reels will fit into a cubic foot of space. Therefore, 1,000 feet of
hard copy (two million images) will fit on about 700 reels which only need
seven cubic feet of storage space. If the filming cost is not charged to
the storage bill, the storage is only $43.40 ($6.20 x 7).
7. Projecting these ratios to one half the files in the Records Cente??
will show enormous savings in space through microfilming (50,000 cubic feet
of hard copy can be reduced to 334 cubic feet of microfilms). If we don't
include the $400,000 ($8.00 x 50,000) filming cost, this filming reduces
the storage costs to a mere $2,070 ($6.20 x 334)? Also if the original
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
documents are destroyed the space gained is a building worth
372, x+95 at
today's construction rate of $15 per square foot. (The value of the space
recovered is less at the old, original construction cost.)
8. The Records Staff has repeatedly studied and rejected the micro-
filming for storage concept because we consider the filming conversion costs STAT
to be disproportionately high for the space gained.
put the cost at $450,000 if the Agency does the project or $1,125,000 if it
is contracted for. (We calculate a filming cost in excess of one million
dollars, not the low $8 cost estimate which totals $x+00,000.) Further, we
find the procedural burdens and poor record quality to be detrimental to
office operations in filing, retrieving, and using the microfilm product.
9. Microfilming technology has not changed the manpower requirements
for analysis and management of the material selected for microfilming, the
indexing for retrieval, and the controls for related office procedures.
Attached are three authoritative articles on the microfilming problems iden-
tified in the past~en years and still major problems for microfilm opera-
tions today. (Tabs C, D, and E) Every point they make should be part of
this memo. Our experiences wi.~th offices handling paper records does not
permit us to be optimistic. We feel the office procedures, personnel, or
management will not become more proficient or concerned with filing and
records just because the records media is changed to microfilm. Data pro-
cessing technology changes are forcing management to give greater attention
to records problems. Higher level professionals are concerned with file
content, procedures, use, and disposition but the improvements will require
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
i~~ - ~
the next several years to be implemented, take effect, and reduce the
Agency's requirement for reference to old records and a place to store
them.
10. It is our recommendation that a microfilming project not be the
alternative selected as the possible solution for the current records
storage problem.
11. We believe and recommend that at today's Records Center construc-
tion prices of $15 per square foot an addition of 25,000 square foot for
records storage floor space adjoining the present Records Center
could be constructed to house 50,000 cubic feet of Agency records and the
total cost would be substantially lower than related microfilming costs.
12. During the engineering planning and architectural designing care-
ful consideration could be given to IInergency Relocation requirements for
subterranean Vital Records storage and better fall-out protected operating
space for the Agency ~nergency Force. The Records Center personnel now
maintain the 11,000 cubic feet of Vital Records on deposit. They could con-
tinue such part-time service for an adjacent emergency facility if its con-
struction is added to the proposed Records Center addition.
13. Further, the interior design of an addition could be modernized
to permit a higher density of storage. Qur rate of 2 cubic feet for each
square foot of floor space could be increased to a 3 to 1 or 3.5 to 1 ratio
if the columns were omitted and the shelving made higher with library type
catwalks instead of floors and ladders. A section with movable shelving
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
? w
cou~~; ~ considered. Or the new "conservative" motorized retrieval of boxes
from ,;?'gh shelves could be built in. The engineers arld architects should
consul.`" "~~ith National Archives as well as the National Records Council in
New York before considering a conventional structure with basic shelving.
14. Personnel considerations also require a contiguous facility rather
than use of facilities located elsewhere with new manpower. Likewise, the
manpower for servicing records retrieval from microfilm would be consider-
ably higher than it is now for servicing hard copy. The research and file
retrieval time may be comparable but the additional reproduction time is
more for film than today's servicing operation. In addition to increased
personnel costs there would have to be large institutional-size copy flow
machines to handle the 100,000 service requests processed annually. The
film reduction of records bulk would not reduce the personnel requirements.
15. In view of the practical operating difficulties as well as the
economics involved, we are compelled to recommend against the microfilmin~?
project and continuation of the hard copy storage policy with its attendant
requirement for additional construction.
CIA Records Administration
Officer
~ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28: CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~ ? ~
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
a
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
..~ ~ ~
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ~ i ~ I
O WASHINGTON is O. C.
SUBJECT: Accountability for Reimbursable Microfilming
Services in the Federal Records Centers
1. PURPOSE. This order establishes the procedure for handling reim-
bursable microfilming services in Federal Records Centers and
transmits schedules of fees to be charged to Federal agencies for
such services.
2. AUTHORITY. General Services Administration Circular No. 295 of I ~ ~
January 14, 1963 announces centralized microfilming services to
Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. This service can be
rendered by each region within existing budgetary procedures. -'
3s ~RiFiE~r~i St~~3~~Gg T? R~~M~U~~Ei~~T. ~~~~i~~~ ~e ~~~n~!?? fay
Q which fees shall be charged include preparing, indexing, and filming
records; and inspecting the film and labeling the film containers.
These services plus film and processing comprise the costs for which
reimbursement will be charged. -
4. FEE SCHEDULES FOR MICROFILM SERVICES. Attached are fee ~r
schedules listing the rates to be charged for various types of micro-
filming projects based on type of process and type and size of documer~ts?
The mini~rium fee for any given project is $15.00. Copies of fee
schedules are being distributed to records center officials to be used
as handouts for agencies interested in these services. Additional
copies may be reproduced at the regional level.
5. REIMBURSEMENT. The regions shall obtain a commitment in writing
for each microfilming project before any filming is actually undertaken.
Such commitments should outline the scope of the work to be done,
give the agency appropriation symbol to be charged, and state whether
billing is to be done on a quarterly basis or when projects are completed.
1.
Q Distribution:. A-3a, b, ?; B-3h, 7e;
- F; G-3a, b. 7; H-3e, 7b
NAR 1844. 1'
March Z6, 1963
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~~ ~ ?
NAR 18 44. 1
March 26, 1963
6. FUNDING. Allotments to finance the reimbursable work shall be
obtained through normal operating budget procedures. Operating
budget requeeto should include reimbursable funds based oa an
WAYNE C. GROVER
Archivist of the United States .
~stirrsat~ of microtiltaiag s~rvia~s to b? pestorm~d.
PAR 6
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
.'
NAR 1844. 1
March 26,.1963
FEE SCHEDULES FOR MICROFILMING SERVICES
Schedule A ? 16mm Rotary Camera
Automatic Feed
Schedule A covers only card records that are in good condition, of uniform
size and thickness, and of one color, that ale not stapled or fastened
together. i ~ ..,, ~
1, 000 Images :,
$2,.60
$2.90
$3.25
~~`''- $3.60
$3. ~5
.$4.30
$4.75
~ t . ,
' Document Length ~ ~ `. ~ ,., Cost Per
in Inche s
. 2. 5 thru 4. 0
4. 5 thru 6. 0
6.5 thru 8.0
8.5 thru 10.0
10.5 thru 12.0
12.5 thru 14.0
14.5 thru 15.0
Schedule B 16mm Rotary Camera
Hand Feed
2.5 thru 4.0...
4.5 th ru 6.0
6.5 thru 8.0
8.5 thru 10. 0
10.5 thru 12.0
12.5 thru 14.0
14.5 thru 15.0
$9.70 .
$13.25
$23.20
Appendix A. ? ~ Fee' Schedules for Microfilming Services
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
' , ~ Schedule B covers card records in good condition which must be hand fed
.~`~\ ~ into a rotary camera, because they are not uniform in size or thicknese~
or , colof; ~ ..
$4.95
$5.70 .
.,,,~y $6.65
.. $7.90
Coat Per
1 .000 Images
 ?. ~
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
NAR 1844. 1
March 26, 1963
Schedule C - 16mm Rotary Camera
Hand Feed
Schedule C covers subject files, .correspondence files, and case files,
which may contain. a variety of sites varying is Color tone, in types of
paper and legibility.' ..? ~ .
~,
Document Length ~ Cost Per
in Inches ~ ~ 1, 000 Images ..
2.5 thru 15.0
$9.45
Schedule D covers oversize documents such as bound volumes, enginee~~
ing drawings, large ledger sheets which cannot be filmed with rotary ;, ;`
cameras.
Schedule D - 35mm Planetary Camera
Hf3iCiiiirl8flt ~gflg~ ~S~t ~~~ `3
in Inches
1, 000 Images
14.0 thru 19.0
$31.20
19.0 thru 24.0
$35.90
24.O.thru 30.0.
$42.25 ~>
30. 0 thru 36.0 ~
$50.65 ~
ing, developing, and materials only. Minimum charge for each project
is $15.00. Additional coats, as indicated below, may apply to some
projects.
The charges in Schedules A through D include the coat of filming,~inspect
The fees listed in these schedules do not include preparation time which
may be required prior to filming. Such preparation may include removal
of staples, unfolding documents, document repair and targeting. Where
such preparation is required, a fee of $3.00 per hour should be, added to
the costs shown in these schedules. - - ._
The prices are baecd on work being performed in the Federal Records
Center. If for any reason an agency must have the filming done on its
Appendix A.. Fee Schedules for Microfilming Services
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
3 - . ~? ~ ;
0
NAR 1844.1
March 26, 1963
own premises, a $5.00 per hour charge will be made for transporting aad ,
installing equipment.
A slight charge may be added when the center to requested to make a
special trip to pick up and return records being microfilmed.
If in the ,judgment of the responsible NAR3 official the filming is of a more
difficult type than stated in the schedule, special cost eettmatee will be
made. ~' -? ~~'
Appendix A. `Fee Schedules for Microfilming Services
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
1
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 ST Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
t~iINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE O~
PRINTING and PHOTOGRAPHIC
PRICE LIST
IANUARY 1965
OFFICE OF LOGISTICS
PRINTING SERVICES DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
.A~[INISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE 01
PRINTING SERVICES DIVISION
PRINTING PRICE LIST
(FOR ESTIMATING JOB COSTS)
These are prices to be used for estimating the cost of proposed work. Final cost
will be computed from actual labor and materials used.. Additional information and
assistance in estimating the cost of rinting jobs may be obtained by calling the
Production Planning Staff, STAT
COMPOSING
(Up to 8 x l0i/Z size)
(For larger sizes add 20%)
Type composition $13.00 per page
Typing for offset reproduction (non-justified) (includes forms,
etc.) 8.00 per page
Typing for offset reproduction (justified) 11.50 per page
Form composition and drafting . 11.50 per page
Typing direct-image plates, mimeograph stencils, and ditto
master;~ (straight matter) 4.60 per page
(Above prices for composing and typing include proofreading)
PRINTING
Duplicating-Mimeograph, ditto, direct image offset
(Single sheet work)
One side only:
First 100 impressions 1.00 per page
Each additional 100 impressions from the same master or
plate . .45 per page
Back-up page when two sides are printed:
First 100 impressions .80 per page
Each additional 100 impressions from the same master or
plate . .30 per page
(Collating and stitching are not included in above prices)
Duplicating-Mimeograph, ditto, direct image offset
(Booklet work)
One side only:
First 100 copies . 1.10 per page
Each additional 100 copies . .55 per page
Back-up page when two sides are printed:
First 100 copies . .90 per page
Each additional 100 copies . .35 per page
(Above prices include collating and stitching)
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~IIINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE OSY
Photo Offset Printing
(Up to 8 x 301/2 size)
(Single sheet work)
One side only:
First 100 impressions
$3.85
Each additional 100 impressions .
.55
Back-up page when tioo.~sdes are printed:
First 100 impressions :
3.65
Each additional impressions
.35
(Above prices include camera work, layout, and platemaking)
Photo Offset- Printing
(Up to 8 x 101/2 size)
(Booklet work)
First, 100 copies 4.05 per page
Each additional 100 copies . .65 per page
(Price includes camera work, layout, platemaking, folding, collating,
and stitching. To be used in estimating booklet work.)
Letterpress Printing
(Up to 8 x 101,/2 size)
(Single sheet work)
One side only:
First 100 impressions
3.45
Each additional 100 impressions
.85
Back-up page when two sides are printed:
First 100 impressions .
3.25
Each additional 100 impressions :
.65
Letterpress Printing
(Up to 8 x 101/2 size)
(Booklet work)
First 100 copies- : 16.50 per page
Each additional 100 copies . .80 per .page
(Price includes type composition, proofreading, folding, collating,
and stitching. To be used in estimating booklet work.)
BINDERY
Bindery operations for completed pamphlet or booklet work
are included in the estimated per page cost and include
folding, collating and stitching.
Additional bindery operations and hand bookbinding or case
binding will be charged at the rate of $6.75 per hour.
Padding (100 sheets per pad),. : .05 per pad
Punching (1, 2 or 3 holes) (includes makeready} per 100
sheets - 1.00
Each additional 1000 sheets .22
Note: All prices are based on straight line copy. Additional copy preparation,
presswork or bindery operations will be charged at standard rates for each opera-
tion.
All estimated prices for printing include offset book, mimeograph, ditto, or 401b.
sulphite paper. Other paper or card stock used will be charged at cost.
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
A~INISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE Ol\r~
PIi~INTING SERVICES DIVISION
PHOTOGRAPHIC PRICE LIST
(FOR ESTIMATING JOB COSTS)
1. This pricc; list has been prepared to assist the user in obtaining an advance estimate
of the cost of specific types of photographic work. Actual charges for photographic
work may vary from these estimates as they are made on the basis of fixed prices
and/or charges for actual labor and materials used.
2. For information about other products and services not listed call
3. Minimum charge on all photocopy and diazo jobs, $1.00 per requisition.
4. Minimum charge on all other photographic work, $2.00 per requisition.
5. Volume work usually decreases the price per unit for large jobs. Amore accurate
estimate can be obtained by calling the Printing Services Division
Paper prints made directly from drawings, maps, docu-
ments-price includes trimming, collating, and stapling
as required.
A. PHOTOSTATS
Price based on 9" x 12" or smaller, cost of larger
prints estimated in multiples of 9" x 12" . $0.35 per unit
(Example: A photostat of a 16" x 101/2" document would be
figured. as two. 9" x 12" units or .70)
B. ELECTROSTATIC PRINTS
Price based on standard 8" x 101/z" document . .04
Paper and foil prints made directly from one-sided
drawings or documents which have a translucent or
transparent base. Prices are based on square footage
and include trimming, collating and stapling as re-
quired.
A. PAPER PRINTS (Ozalid)
Sini;le Wt. paper print
.02 sq. ft.
B. FOIL PRINT (Film Transparency, Ozalid)
Standard .005" thickness film
.22 sq. ft.
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~VlINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE C!Y
III. PHOTOGRAPHY, Black. & White
A. FILM NEGATIVE
Price based on individual negatives or frames
1. 35mm negative $0.07 per neg.
* 2. 70mm negative . .10 per neg.
3. 8" x 10" negative 1.40 per neg.
"On Location" photography services available at
additional cost of approximately . ,. 6.10 per hr.
B. PRINTS, PHOTOGRAPHIC
Price based on standard single weight prints
1. Prints up to and including 4" x 6" . .12 per print
2. Prints larger than 4". x 6" up to and including
5" x 8" .17 per print
8" x 10" . .25 per print
11" x 14" .35 per print
20" x 24'--' 1.60 per print
30" x 40" 2.55 per print
Special printing papers and techniques are avail-
able at extra cost.
'~ Addational 70mm negative of same original . .O6
A. MICROFILMING
Price includes preparatory work (unstapling etc.),
shooting, processing, inspecting, cost of film, reel,
carton, and reassembling of originals.
1. Flat bed camera work, for all types of originals
a. 35mm film-each 100 frames or less . 4.00 per 100 frames
b. 16mm film-each 100 frames or less . 3.80 per 100 frames
2. Rotary camera work, used mainly for card files
a. 16mm film-100 frames .30 per 100 frames
B. MICROFILM PROCESSING (For "Customer" Film)
Price includes standard processing, inspection, reel
and carton. Custom processing available at extra cost.
1. 35mm film-100 ft. roll ,
1.95 per roll
2. 16mm film-100 ft. roll .
1.95 per roll
3. 35mm film-36 exp. cassetts .
.70 per roll
C. MICROFILM DUPLICATING
From furnished film. Price includes printing,
processing, film, reel, carton and inspection.
1. Diazo 35mm 100 ft. roll ,
4.70 per roll
2. Diazo 16mm 100 ft, roll .
3.60 per roll
3. Silver 35mm 100 ft. roll .
6.30 per roll
4. Silver 16mm 100 ft. roll .
5.40 per roll
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~/IINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE O~
C. COLOR TRANSPARENCIES, ORIGINAL
Frorn original art work
(3 orig. or less)
(ea. add.)
1. 35mm (2" x 2" mount) .
2. 31/4" x 4" (glass mount)
3. 8" x 10" (unmounted)
13.75
15.95
25.00
2.30
3.40
5.70
DUPLICATE
D
COLOR TRANSPARENCIES
.
,
From furnished original transparencies
(3 orig. or less)
(ea. add.)
1. 35mm (2" x 2" mount) .
4.60
.25
2. 3 i/4" x 4" (glass mount)
9.10
1,40
3. 8" x 10" (unmounted)
13.75
2.00
E. COLOR PRINTS
PRINTNN
,
From furnished original transparencies
(10 or less)
(ea. add.)
1. 4" x 5" .
8.00
.75
2. 5" x 7" .
9.50
.90
3. 8" x 10" .
17.15
1.45
F. COLOR PRINTS
EKTACOLOR
,
From negative color film
(5 or less)
(ea. add.)
1.4"x5".
7.00
1.10
2.5"x7".
9.00
1.35
3. 8" x 10"
14.00
2.10
4. 11" x 14" .
26.00
4.05
5. 20" x 24" .
55.00
8.40
G. COLOR INTERNEGATIVES
From original transparency or art work
(8 or less)
(ea. add.)
1. 21/4" x 31/4" ?
12.00
1.10
2. 4" x 5" .
16.00
1.30
3. 8" x 10"
20.00
2.00
A. FILM PROCESSING (For "Customer" Film)
1. Negative Film
(100 ft. or less) (ea. add. 100 ft.)
a. 16 or 35mm 5.40 3.60
2. Reversal Film (Processed as Negative Only)
a. l6mm . 5.40 3.60
B. FILM PRINTING-Black and White, from fur-
nished original negative
1. Sitent Film
(100 ft. or less)
(ea. add. 100 ft.)
a. 35mm
11.65
4.60
b. 16mm .
11.15
4.10
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 ~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
The Case for Microfilming
>3v MARGARET M. WEIS 1
~ERRY McDonald's article entitled "The Case Against Micro-
filming" 2 might better have been called "The Case Against
the Misuse of Microfilming." The present article aims to
show ct:rtain human failures in microfilming that can lead to hasty
conclusions such as Miss McDonald's and to explain how these
failures can be prevented. Some of Miss McDonald's criticisms
are, of course, justified. Microfilming has been oversold, and the
overselling lr.as been harmful. Microfilming is a useful tool, but it
is not the answer to every record problem.
Users of microfilm equipment should be given more information
about the uses and limitations of microfilm so that they can avoid
the costly errors that often result from inexperience in this relatively
new field. Many problems, to be sure, will arise in filming particular
types of records that the manufacturers, suppliers, salesmen, camera
operators, and even microfilm "experts" can hardly be expected to
anticipate. On the other hand, there are many pitfalls about which
a customer can be warned. in advance.
One of the most useful publications in the field of microfilming
is the Department of the Army's Technical Manual no. TM-I2-
25'7, Microfilming of Records, available from the Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, D. C., for so cents. Although this manual
covers, fot'the?most part, the use of specific microfilming equipment
and the problems peculiar to that equipment, it includes two ap-
pendixes that are of tremendous value to users of the type of equip-
ment discussed and that are of general interest to all users of
microfilming equipment and services. Appendix I, "Camera Opera-
tor's Guide," includes a "Trouble Chart" designed to enable the
1 The author is Clerical Methods Planner, Western Electric Co., Inc. She has based
her article on her own experience over a period of rq years as supervisor responsible
for the microfilming of approximately zoo kinds of records of the Western Electric Co.
(more than 5,000,000 exposures) on too-ft., t6-mm. microfilm. The microfilming was
done in some cases to conserve storage space through destruction of originals but in
most cases to provide duplicate copies for security storage at a distant location.
A joint committee of the Western Electric Co. and the Bell Telephone Laboratories
is now studying the app{icability of precision microfilming to the reproduction of et1-
gineering papers.
zAmtrican Archivist, 20:345`356 ?(Oct. 1957)?
r5 .
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
camera operator to determine the probable cause of certain mechan-
ical difficulties and gives detailed instructions how, in some cases,
simple corrective action can be taken by the camera operator., Ap-
pendix 2, "Film Inspection Guide," describes and illustrates the
defects to be looked for in the inspection of processed film, identifies
their probable causes, and prescribes remedies. Also extremely
valuable is the standard nomenclature, which should be used in ex-
plaining machine difficulties and film defects to suppliers' repair-
service organizations.
Everybody involved in a microfilming operation would benefit
from wider dissemination of information of this kind. Instruction
manuals containing such information should be prepared and dis-
tributed by suppliers to all users of their equipment. Prepared by
or for a particular user, such a manual is not generally available to
others except as a special courtesy.
Constant electrical voltage is essential for high-quality microfilm
copies - a fact that the writer learned only through experience.
But the difficulties that arise frorrr fluctuating voltage can be elimi-
nated by setting up the microfilm equipment in a permanent location
served by a separate electrical line or by installing constant-voltage
transformers on camera equipment that must be moved from place
to place. /
The making of paper copies from microfilm in the event of a
major catastrophe such as an atomic bomb attack would be, as Miss
McDonald points out, a real problem, especially for companies that
cannot afford to have their own reproducing equipment. In this
?case it is probably true that the advantages of microfilm for pro-
tection against bomb damage have been overemphasized and that
this has generated too great an enthusiam for microfilm as a means
of duplicating business records for protection. How paper repro-
ductions are to be obtained quickly from microfilm if there is wide-
spread destruction of originals has not been much discussed,
probably for the reason that until very recently processes now known
were not developed. In considering microfilming for security, the
business or industrial client should ask: Who will make the repro-
ductions from the microfilm, in an emergency? How long will it take
to reproduce in paper form the records that our company will need ?
How much will it cost? What will be our position of "priority"
for such reproduction?
On the other hand, it must be admitted that a microfilm copy is
better than no copy at all. It is a relatively inexpensive form of .
insurance, the film is available for reference, and the original records
can be reconstructed from the film. Such reconstruction may not be .
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
., ~ ~
THE CASE FOR MICROFILMING
easy; it may take a long time; it will be expensive. But the informa-
tion is there and can be extracted eventually from the film.
Most of the other criticisms made by Miss McDonald in her
article are unjustified. For instance, her statement on the legal
status of microfilm, "If you encounter ... [a judge] who has had a
bad experience with film, he may reject it as primary evidence," is
misleading. It would have been more accurate to add, "in which
case, a foundation would have to be laid for introducing the film
copy or a reproduction made from it as secondary evidence if the
original records had been destroyed."
In most of the cases of failure of a microfilm project cited by Miss
McDonald, it seems to me, that the client rather than microfilm was
at fault. It is not fair to build a case against microfilming by using
illustrations that clearly indicate that the customer misused the
microfilm process. Companies that have "stopped filming because
of the loss of detail in both taking the film and reproducing it after-
wards" should have made sure that they were able to get legible
microfilm and legible reproductions from the rr~icrofilm before em-
barking on a large-scale project. Misuse of microfilming with the
expectation that it is going to perform miracles and pick up details
that are obscure on the original records is not a "case against micro-
filming," but rather a reflection on the judgment of the people who
selected a medium that was not adapted to the needs of their com-
panies or the quality of their records. Abandoning microfilming
because it is not adapted to a specific group of records is like giving
up all ice cream because you can't, stand pistachio flavor.
The reference to microfilm copies in an engineering group raises
again the question whether the records involved actually lend them-
selves to- retent;on on microfilm only. Indiscriminate microfilming
is always a mistake. No records should be microfilmed with the
idea that microfilm copies will be used in lieu of the originals unless
it has been ascertained that the film copies will be convenient for
the kind of reference to which the records are normally subjected.
Obviously a set of records to be used by a group of engineers who
find it necessary to see and compare a dozen drawings at the same
time should be retained in original paper form. This again, how-
ever, is not a case against microfilming, but a case against the misuse
of it.
Most original drawings (tracings) are customarily filed apart
from their supporting papers. But if reference copies of drawings
are filed with supporting papers for convenient reference, then such
drawings should not be segregated for microfilming by themselves.
If reference to records filmed after such segregation is inconvenient,
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
i8 THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
this should not be counted as a disadvantage of the microfilming
process. Before any records are microfilmed, the way in which the
film copies are to be used must be carefully considered.
The "irate chief engineer," whose drawings included significant
colors that did not show up on microfilm, should have directed his
wrath not against microfilm but rather against the people responsi-
ble for setting up the microfilming program. The job should not
have been started until the significancy of the colors had been es-
tablished and provided for. This is elementary in a microfilming
project.
The company that balked at the cost of a microfilm reader was
straining at a gnat after swallowing a camel.. It does seem that
a company that is able to spend money to have records microfilmed
by an outside concern should be able to afford a reader, which costs
around $50o to $7So. There are, however, less expensive readers
available, which are entirely adequate for normal use with records
up to legal size. If a man who hires a secretary balks at buying a
typewriter for her to use, is this a case against having a secretary?
Other illustrations appear to show that the customer in question
mismanaged his microfilm project. The case made is against poor
managers rather than against microfilming. As to the danger of
putting film in the wrong box after reference, since when have
engineers become. .file clerks? Why shouldn't the file department
be responsible for finding the filmed records for users and refiling.
them after such use?
Adequate labeling should be provided in any case. No microfilm
service organization (whether within or outside the company whose
records are affected) is doing a good job if it does not take the
following precautions
r. Photograph a reel number (which will. be legible without magnification)
at the beginning and the end of each roll of film;
2. Scratch or mark the reel number on the spool on which the film is wound ;
3. Scratch or mark the reel number on the can in which the spool is stored ;
and
4. Mark the reel number on the carton in which the roll or can is stored.
People who do not require their files -whether paper or microfilm
- to be properly labeled are asking for trouble; and those who do
not set up proper safeguards to ensure that files properly labeled are
kept in good order should not be entrusted with the supervision or
handling of company records in any form.
Users of microfilm should be subject to the same rules as those
who use paper records, and the same kind of control should be exer-
cised to ensure that the rules are observed. Don't blame the micro-
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9 ``
THE CASE FOR MICROFILMING
film because an absent-minded employee (who shouldn't be doing
filing in the first place) puts it into the wrong carton. This is the
same person who will put a letter into the wrong folder and put a
folder into the wrong file. drawer and put a binder on the wrong
shelf.
The argument that records in constant use can't be released for
microfilming is specious. When it is decided that microfilming is
the quickest and least expensive method of duplicating records in
constant use so that the microfilm copies can be stored at another
location for protection, some way can always he found to release
them for the relatively short time required for the microfilming
operation. If microfilming is rejected, how does Miss McDonald
suggest that the records are to be protected? A file of rate cards,
for instance, of which only one copy exists? Is there any other dupli-
cating method that would be easier, quicker, or less expensive? Is
there any other duplicating method that would make it unnecessary
for organizations using the records to release them for the time it
takes to duplicate them ?
Filming the reverse sides of documents is a most interesting sub-
ject, to which an entire article could be devoted. Such filming can
indeed be time-consuming if the camera equipment in use is not
adapted to the kind of records being filmed. This takes us back to
the need for more helpful and informative sales and instruction
hooklets and more extensive preliminary investigation by the
prospective client. The most modern, streamlined equipment, de-
signed to photograph both sides of a document simultaneously, may
prove to be less than ideal when the filming jobs to be handled are
complicated -when different kinds of records are to be filmed,
some large and others small, some on $hick paper and others on
thin, soMe with Nriting on one side only and others with writing on
both sides, some with two sides designed for book-turn and others
designed for tumble-turn.
The changes and adjustments that are necessary to photograph
records of different reflective qualities, on different colored paper
with different colored inks, and so forth, should prevent the camera
operator from becoming bored, instead of inducing boredom, as
Miss McDonald suggests. Not all such differences require adjust-
ment of the camera on all kinds of microfilming work. There are
many types of records microfilmed for protection that contain colors
having no significance whatever or that are on colored paper. for
which only a single camera adjustment has to be made at the be-
ginning of the job. Any such adjustments should add an element of
interest to the work.
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
#i
If, because of boredom, the- operator speeds up (an unlikely
result if I know my psychology) and produces poor copy, this is not
a case against microfilming but a case against an incompetent, un-
interested, or ill trained and inadequately supervised employee. A
well trained and properly supervised microfilm operator ex/~ects
such complications and irritations. He does not become bored by
them; he considers them all part of the day's work. It takes time
and thought to instill such an attitude in a microfilm operator ; but
of course, unless this is done, the microfilming program will not be
successful. The same can be said of any other job in shop or office.
Miss McDonald's arguments with respect to the inspection of
processed film are but a house of cards built on a nonexistent founda-
tion. Let us consider them one at a time: "After being filmed, the
files are generally stacked away rather haphazardly to await the
return of the film." To me this suggests poor management and un-
tidy housekeeping rather than a case against microfilming. In a well
managed microfilm service organization the records that have been
microfilmed are maintained in their original order and are carefully
set aside for quick, convenient reference should inspection of the
processed film indicate the need for retakes or other corrective
action. Another remark: "When it [the film] arrives, it must be
inspected by a competent official of the firm." Here we see mis-
management in another form - not a case against microfilming.
Now we send the president out to buy paper clips instead of leaving
the job to the employee who was hired to do it. Do "competent
officials" proofread the work done by typists and stenographers?
Do they refigure reports completed by calculating machine opera-
tors ?
Depending on the extent of the microfilming activity, processed
film should be inspected by (a) the camera operator, with occasional
spot checks by his supervisor, (b) the supervisor immediately re-
sponsible for the microfilming operation, or (c) a microfilm in-
spector, in a large microfilming group. A fast non sequitur follows:
"This close, thorough scrutiny is very important, very slow, and
very boring so that eventually the inspection receives progressively
less attention until it is neglected entirely or turned over to some
junior clerk." A strange way fora "competent official" to handle
a "very important" piece of work 1 Actually, the inspection of
processed microfilm is too important to be entrusted to a "compe-
tent official" (whether he becomes bored by it or not) or to be
turned over to "some junior clerk." Such treatment is unfair to the
film, unfair to the official, unfair to the junior clerk, and most un-
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
__
? ?
THE CASE FOR MICROFILMING ac
fair of all to the people in the organization who are responsible for
handling the details of the microfilming job.
The inspection of processed film should properly be as close as
possible to the actual microfilming operation (whether the photo-
graphing is done on the company's premises or outside, by the
comp;iny's personnel or by another firm under contract). Inspection
is, in fact, inseparable from the filming process. Processed micro-
film should be inspected by employees who are familiar .with the
problems involved in the handling of records and the microfilming
equipment. Such employees should be trained to look for and
recognize faults, to analyze them and determine their cause, to
know what remedial action should he taken and by whom so that
similar faults will not appear on future jobs. There are probably
more than a hundred different kinds of faults, any of which might
show up on a roll of processed microfilm -due to camera trouble,
film defects, careless processing, reader defects, operator error,
defects in the original records, or other causes.
Inspection of this sort can be very interesting and a source of
continual education to the personnel in the microfilming group and
can have great future value from 'the standpoint of improving the
condition of the original records, the quality of the microfilm images,
and the speed and ease of handling the entire microfilming project.
We all probably, at one time or another, make the mistake of think-
ing that because a thing bores us it bores everybody. This is not
true. Regardless of how dull an activity may appear to be from a
distance, or to someone who knows little or nothing about it, it can
become intensely interesting when it is explored in depth.
Miss McDonald's tale of mismanagement (which she calls "a
case against microfilming") ends on a sad note: "The result is that
many companies aren't in a position to state positively that they
have honest, legible copies of their records." Companies that have,
set up microfilming programs sliorrld be able to state positively
whether or not they have honest, legible film copies. They should
also be able to state positively whether they are going to.be able to
get honest, legible paper, facsimile reproductions from the micro-
film if such copies are needed: Unless they are assured on these
points, they will be simply wasting their time and money on a micro-
filming project.
As for the cost of retakes, Miss McDonald asks us to "consider
the experience of one Los Angeles financial firm that filmed 2,300,-
000 documents and carefully inspected the finished product. As a
result they had to find and retake 3S,ooo documents. The finding
and retaking cost more than the original run." The same thing
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
is THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
happened in New York City. In such cases, blame people, not~micro-
film. If, from the beginning of the project, a close watch had been
kept on the quality of the completed film, if each reel of completed
microfilm had been carefully inspected immediately after processing,
if the faults had been analyzed in detail to determine their cause,
if remedial action had been taken during the course of the job -
the staggering number of retakes would have been unnecessary.
Where was everybody while all these errors were being made?
We can assume that the retakes involved microfilming errors rather
than faulty original records because the article indicates that the
records in Los Angeles had to be found and rephotographed, and
the New York City job also involved finding and refilming the docu-
ments involved. It is simply not good business practice for a concern
to enter into any project costing thousands (or hundreds of
,thousands} of dollars without setting up an effective procedure to
ensure, on a day-to-day basis, the quality of the service that is being
rendered.
"some people distrust microfilm." Yes, and some people distrust
central files and centralized .record storage. They may or may not
have good reason for their feeling, but distrust of microfilm copies
does not constitute a case against microfilming. It is related instead
to the fact that a service performed in a quiet, efficient manner by
cheerful, properly trained, adequately supervised employees who
are interested in their work will inspire confidence, whereas a poorly
managed service will inspire distrust. It makes no difference whether
we're talking about microfilming or haircutting. Any microfilm
? project is foredoomed to failure if it labors under the disadvantages
of inadequate supervision, untrained personnel, users of film copies
who do not know the "ground rules," and organizations made re-
sponsible for records to be microfilmed but not required to follow
definite procedures in handling them.
As for microfilming costs, it is true that under certain circum-
stances the cost of microfilming a given set of records may equal the
cost of storing them in original form .for ~o years, as Miss 1VIc-
IJonald says in relating the experiences of some companies. It is
also true that under other conditions the cost of microfilming the
same records or different records of the same company may be no
more than the cost of storing them in original form for to years.
5o~many factors enter into the computation of such costs that the
mere statement of a conclusion has no meaning unless all of the
conditions are known.
Many people are overwhelmed at the thought of "preparing"
records for microfilming; that is, putting them in correct order;
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
against the cost of microfilming or whether it should be considered
a natural consequence of previous filing indiscretions is something
that each organization must decide for itself.- Of coarse it takes
time to assemble records for microfilming. In many cases the
persons responsible for maintaining the records to be filmed can be
instructed in advance how to prepare them so that such annoying
steps as the removal of fasteners and the mending of torn sheets
cars be eliminated or reduced to a minimum at the time of micro-
filming. Small sets of papers stapled together or cards fastened
with linen hinges can be microfilmed on some machines without
removing the fasteners.
As to colors, only those that have special significance require color
coiling. Originators of records that ar-e to be microfilmed should be
advised to eliminate the use of color wherever possible and to sub-
stitute symbols, such as brackets, for red ink as a means of dis-
tinguishing negative figures.
Files should be maintained in proper order at all times whether
they are to be microfilmed or not. Torn papers should be mended
at the time the damage occurs, and the cost of such mending at the
time of microfilming is not a proper microfilming cost. Whether the
removal of fasteners, clips, and pins constitutes a legitimate expense
to be charged to microfilming or whether most of the fasteners
should have been removed at the time the records were originally
filed is a matter that must be determined by the organization in-
volved.
Some of the factors that affect microfilming costs are the
following: .
removing clips, staples, pins, or other fasteners; and mending torn ~
papers. Whether the cost of such operations should he charged
The kind of records involved.
Their purpose.
The kind of reference made to them.
The frequency of reference.
The persons who use them.
The size of the individual papers.
Are they of uniform or variable size? Is the variation frequent or
occasional ?
The thickness of the individual cards or papers.
Are they of uniform or variable thickness? Is the variation frequent
or occasional?
The volume of the records.
The way in which the writing stands on the page.
Is it parallel with the short dimension or the long dimension, in a
uniform or variable direction, with frequent or occasional variations?
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
Io. The number of sides to be photographed.
Is there an intermingling of one-sided and two-sided papers? Is the
change from one-side to two-side work frequent within a given lot?
Is it easy to determine from the appearance of the first side or in some
other manner whether the reverse side must be filmed, or must the
operator look at both sides to be sure?
II. The kind of folders, binders, or fasteners used.
I2. The thickness of the folders, binders, and papers.
13. The condition of the original records.
Are they clear and legible? Are there many fasteners (staples, pins,
or paper clips) ? Are the sheets folded or curled at the edges? Are
significant colors used or is the paper of different colors? Are
flyers pasted or stapled to the papers covering significant data?
I?. The kind of microfilming equipment indicated.
15. The terms on which the equipment will be procured.
Will the equipment be purchased or rented ?
16. The kind of film to be used.
1~. The method of microfilming:
Standard (one document across the width of the film).
Duo (up one side of the film and down the other).
Duplex (backs and fronts filmed simultaneously).
18. The reduction ratio to be used.
Ig. The method of feeding-automatic or by hand.
20. The grade of the product required.
Not all records call for the same quality of product.
2I. The grade, salary, and responsibilities of the camera operator.
22. The amount and nature of the supervision.
23. The kind of indexing required.
Some records are almost self-indexing..
24. The kind of inspection to be given the processed film.
25. The manner in which corrections and other retakes are to be made.
Comparable factors must be considered in judging the cost of storing
records in their original form.
It is a good thing to find out what others have to say for or
against a new process and to talk over our problems with those
engaged in similar activities. But in the case of microfilming few
generalizations can be made, few conclusions can be reached, on the
basis of another company's experience. Each company and each
organization within a company must decide for itself, first, whether
records requiring extraordinary protection should be duplicated
on microfilm or whether protection should be provided in some
other manner; and, second, what savings, if any, can be realized by
retaining long-term records on microfilm and destroying the origi-
nals and where the dividing line is in cost (for each type of record)
between retention on microfilm and retention in the original form.
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 ~~ ~ _
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
JANUARY 1959
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
?
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9 ;
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
Z'he Case Against 1V.~icrofilming
By JERRY McDONALD 1
North Hollywood, California
~OUNTLESS articles and speeches have been delivered to the
businessman glorifying, glamorizing, and justifying the vir-
tues and "cure-all" properties of microfilming, but never
to my knowledge, based on extensive research, has anything been
written about the shortcomings of microfilming.
Two years ago Iattended atwo-part lecture in Los Angeles. The
first part covered the usual ground, extolling the finer points of
microfilming. The second part, a week later, drew a very large
group together with the subject described as "The Case Against
Microfilming" for lack of a better name. The subject was covered
competently by a prominent Los Angeles attorney though it did not
express his personal feelings. Rather, it was because of his exten-
sive experience with filming that he was called on to discuss just this
one aspect of filming regardless of his own opinions. He said that,
in fact, he had had to make three very comprehensive surveys to
determine whether to microfilm or to store records, and that in two
of the three instances he, had recommended filming. His talk was
based on his experience with the third survey. It may also be added
that the sponsoring group, if it could be called that, had no ax to
grind either. It was merely arranging the lecture in response to
wishes expressed by a group of record management people in a sur-
vey. The discussion took a hours and merely highlighted some of
the limitations of filming, with practically no references to a cost
comparison of filming with storage. Despite the fact that many in
the audience were either microfilm representatives or officials that
had been using filming, the rather extensive question-and-answer
period that followed brought out practically nothing to refute or
dispute any of the attorney's statements. His presentation and
facts left no room for argument, and his qualifications were readily
apparent. The talk launched me into a 2-year period of research,
which enlarged on and confirmed his statements.
The microfilming of records has been so oversold and sold in so
many wrong places that the salesmen have often become their own
1 The contributor of this paper is a record management consultant practicing in the
West.
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
346 THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
worst enemies. Its capabilities have been honestly and dishonestly
misrepresented. Sometimes very important cost factors have been
glossed over, treated as of no consequence, or ignored completely
to the point where many firms, after a short and bitter experience
with filming, have become thoroughly disillusioned. Filming is gen-
erally sold as an answer to the problem of space, which is often its
least effective use, while its use as a tool in the accounting field, for
.instance, has been largely neglected. It is usually easier to sell film-
ing for the popularly familiar need of saving space than to do the
more complex job of selling it as a business technique for other pur-
poses. I sincerely believe that the potential market for filming has
not been scratched; and, if the opposition created by sales for wrong
reasons continues to grow, it never will be.
One article of the type that I consider extremely misleading ap-
peared in a business magazine of May 1954? It described how one
eastern firm filmed records in a matter of weeks at a cost of approx-
imately $r,5oo. It stated that the program could be continued at a
cost of $25o per year. This article would have you believe that the
microfilming program recovered 3,000 square feet of storage space
occupied by files. A good retention program could recover 3,000
square feet certainly but not through microfilming. The amount of
space recovered by $r,5oo worth of microfilming would not even
make a dent in 3,00o square feet of storage space. In fact, con-
sidering the cost of about $500 2 for a reader and of some $60o for
the three film cabinets illustrated in the article, you would already
have spent $ r, t oo before you had touched a single piece of film.
What does the average businessman find wrong with filming
records? To give a logical order to his objections would be al-
most impossible; so let's step right into the middle of the muddle,
disregarding the occasions when filming is dictated by such neces-
sities as governmental and contractual requirements.
First, take the filming of drawings of various types. One large
manufacturing firm that specialized in big overhead cranes reported
to me that they had stopped filming because of the loss of detail in
both taking the film and reproducing it afterwards. Company after
company has practically abandoned this type of filming because it
simply doesn't develop a dependable finished product. The filming
of drawings is a very specialized and exacting type of work that can
rarely be done in your own plant. Even if satisfactory films could
be obtained, the using of them presents enough difficulty to make
z [Editoi'.r note: Most of the readers in the National Archives cost the Government
about $340. A few are of a type that coats about $8So.]
en
pr
lay
tr
co
pl
th
pl
ke
no
ye
ar
toy
m~
ho
the
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
tly
:ly
.cc
~n-
its
or
ne
~x-
ta
he
ice
00
of
'en
'~~n-
~o r
dy
ng
al-
le,
ge
ed
in
:er
it
ng
an
old
THE CASE AGAINST MICROFILMING 347
engineering personnel rebel against it. This may be a personnel
problem, but it must be recognized because it actually exists on a
large scale. If you choose to ignore it you are heading for the same
trouble as at least two huge Los Angeles aircraft companies en-
countered. These companies have stopped filming almost com-
pletely, except where contracts have required it, and they have had
no choice in the matter. A survey in one of these companies showed
that $a23,ooo could be saved if a t2-year retention period could be
placed on most of its records. Since 9S% of all records have to be
kept less than ro years, this estimate is rather impressive. But I do
not mean to suggest that records that are to be kept more than t a
years should be filmed; far from it.
Let us pursue this matter of filming drawings further. Have you
ever seen an engineering group spread a series of past, present, and
proposed drawings over a table together with accompanying pages
of specifications in order to compare them? This is impossible when
the drawings have been filmed, without considerable expense in find-
ing and reproducing all the documents involved. On the film reader
you can see only one picture at a time, and unless you go to the
considerable expense of putting your related films on one card, you
will have drawings and specifications on one subject, taken over a
period of time, scattered over numerous rolls of film making the
assembling of the various drawings impossible or, at least, very
time consuming. How long do you think your engineers will stand
for leaving their drawing boards to crowd around a viewer in an
effort to decipher an obscure image, to say nothing of the time lost
while they are waiting for films to be changed so that they can see
other drawings that are on different reels of film? Engineers can
be temperamental enough under normal conditions; but under these
conditions they can become impossible. If the element of time is
critical, as in some emergency, the explosion of feelings will be heard
all over your plant. Without costly reproduction equipment, draw-
ings on film cannot be taken back to the drawing board to be mulled
over or be taken home to be worked on. Even with a large supply
of readers, costing $soo to $75o apiece, this disadvantage can be-
come areal problem, particularly in a large organization.
Another disadvantage is that drawings are usually filmed sep-
arately from their supporting documents. If you need the two
together for an inspection, can you imagine the complications that
may arise ~ It is not exaggerating in the least to say that z or 3
hours may be spent in finding the various rolls of film, threading
them into a reader, finding the frames you want, and extracting the
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
34g THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
tidbits of information you need. There are some much easier an-
swers to all of this that will be discussed later.
Many of the situations I have described may arise where almost
any type of business records is concerned. For instance, suppose
you wish to make some changes or insert some additional papers in
your files in relation to the material already on film. Do you put
it on a fresh roll of film, cross index it and add one more item to the
list of rolls to be consulted; or do you cut your film and splice your
additions into the existing roll? Either method is expensive and,
more important, time consuming and cumbersome. In defense
industries where any one part of an assembly may be modified fre-
quently, the problem can reach fantastic proportions, especially
when you consider the ease of dropping all changes and correspond-
ence into one file folder and having it all available in a matter of
minutes to be referred to, carried to your desk, routed through
interested hands, duplicated, and refiled. Incidentally, the chief
engineer's "hen scratchings" are much easier to decipher in the
original than they are on film.
Let us consider the physical operation for a moment. If you
want a file in the original form, a record clerk walks to the file
drawer, pulls the whole file, and hands it to you. A matter of min-
utes. If you want to see a film, you go to the index, find the number
of the roll you want, go to the storage cabinet, find the film or
films, and proceed to the reader with it. You open the carton, being
careful not to get it mixed with other cartons all looking alike, take
out the can, open the can, take out the film, thread the film on the
reader and start looking: With 60o to 6,000 or more frames on a
roll, all of which look alike to the naked eye, finding the proper
frame, despite the best indexes yet devised, can be atime-consuming
process, especially if your documents don't run in some easily fol-
lowed sequence. If you have to refer to several rolls of film to get
a complete picture, the time element can be very important regard-
less of the cost of such an operation.
When you are through with the film, it must be removed from
the machine, replaced in the can, which is then replaced in its carton,
which is then replaced in its proper spot. If several cartons of film
are out at one time, the danger of putting the film in the wrong can
or the can in the wrong carton is not to be treated lightly. Compare
all of this with thumbing through a file, no matter how voluminous,.
to find the documents you want at a glance and then tossing it into
your "out" basket to be refiled.
Some types of business raise other problems. For instance, con-
sid
filn
flat
rec
esp
I'v
par
sib:
as
tha
f rc
anc
aft
fi In
~7~
cor
anc
cor
anc
the
prc
do
for
vet
of
or
ser
the
the
the'
sta
in
sot
rat
pa
Tr
f
car.
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
se
?e-
lY
d-
of
Th
ou
ile
in-
~er
or
ng
ke
he
is
rer
ng
-~1-
-gym
~n,
lm
THE CASE AGAINST MICROFILMING 349
Sider a legal firm whose files may include things that cannot be easily
filmed, such as bound volumes (which can be filmed only with a
flatbed camera equipped with a book cradle), exhibits, and sound
recordings. The necessity of adding documents to a roll of film is
especially recurrent in legal firms, and in some of the large firms
I've seen using film this involves prohibitive cost.
Look at some other actual situations. A large aircraft parts com-
pany in Glendale bought one machine when it should have had pos-
sibly six. It was used for a month and now it gathers dust. Actually,
as in many other cases, the company was generating paper faster
than it could be filmed. This happens surprisingly often. An air-
freight company in North Hollywood bought a filming machine .
and then tried to decide how it was going to be used. One problem
after another arose and to date - 3 years later- not one sheet of
film has been fed into it. This equipment is not cheap - $S,ooo to
$7,Soo' apiece for a not too elaborate filmer. Other instances have
come to light -one in which some executive became sold on filming
and is keeping it going no matter what. The record people of his
.company film everything they can get their hands on, ignoring costs
and serviceability rather than admitting to the rest of the company,
though they did to me, that they had made a mistake in buying the
program in the first place.
Another difficulty to be considered, which is usually not even men-
tioned but which is rather prevalent in some industries, is the need
for a constant, even supply of current to the machine. Filming leaves
very little room for error, and a weakening of the current or a surge
of it during the filming can make an image useless. In some localities
or in large manufacturing plants you should consider this problem
seriously.
Often the records you desire to film are in such constant use that
t'he people involved refuse to part with them long enough to get
them filmed. Don't pass over this lightly. It takes time to assemble
the documents, arrange them in proper order for filming, extract
staples, repair tears, code colors, film the papers, and return them
in usable order 'to their source. You are going to be intruding on
someone else's sacred domain. Taking the camera to the records
rather than bringing the records to the camera is often impossible.
An interesting group of cases was that of several small com-
panies that turned to outside service companies for their filming.
They did this to save the cost of buying their own equipment; or,
a [Edito/t note: The-price here given probably is for a yo mm. or larger flat-bed
camera. The' 3S mm. flatbed cameras in the National Archives coat about $2,400.)
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
' ? ?
35o THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
more commonly, they planned to do so until the thought tardily
occurred to them that they would have to spend $soo to $7So for
a reader.
One irate chief engineer showed me a sizable amount of film on
which his drawings had been copied as part of a vital record pro-
gram. Another obvious factor had been overlooked. It developed
that his drawings were in many colors, each color having its separate
significance. Now there is a very time-consuming process of coding
the colors for filming; this is necessary since everything on film
shows up in black and white or different shades of grey. In this case,
no one thought of it, and the film salesman hadn't touched on it.
In any event, the drawings were meaningless without the colors.
There are perhaps many other situations in which some essential
details will not show on film. One good example is the case of em-
bossed legal seals. A somewhat sloppy and rarely satisfactory
method of showing such seals is to rub the broad side of a pencil
back and forth across them to highlight them for filming.
The mechanical problems involved in preparing records for film-
ing make considerable work for your already shorthanded staff.
Costs have often been calculated on the basis of so many dollars
per i,ooo frames. Here again, something is almost always passed
over lightly as inconsequential and as something you can do in your
"spare time." You first have to be sure your files are in complete
and proper order. The file folders will then be taken individually,
sometimes a considerable distance, to the filming location. Then
someone, usually a girl, will open each folder and remove staples,
clips, metal fasteners, and pins. Each piece of paper must be
checked to smooth out the dog ears and folded sheets, torn places
must be repaired with transparent tape, and important colors must
be coded. It is generally accepted that the cost of these preliminary
steps usually at least. equals the cost of the filming and the film
combined.
Some documents, such as time cards, lend themselves to filming
rather easily. But generally speaking, the average file consists of
an assortment of documents. Some need to be filmed on both sides.
If all of them do, this is easily provided for, but if only an occasional
one does, the process is very time consuming. When you have a
variety of materials to photograph, including papers of different
reflective qualities, different colored inks or the like, the operator
must make constant simple adjustments that slow down the opera-
tion until the operator gets bored and suddenly the filming speeds
up. The result is no joke.
hapha
must
thorn
that e
The r
lively
filmed
produ
This
film r
On
source
Chang
tually
of the
this le
live t~
partic
ence w
that is
When
all the
comple
and di:
You
years.
specific
excess
very a
If the
distort
eno.ugl
lem we
is mere
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
After being filmed, the files are generally stacked away rather
haphazardly to await the return of the film. When it arrives, it
must be inspected by a competent official of the firm. This close,
thorough scrutiny is very important, very slow, and very boring so
that eventually the inspection receives progressively less attention
until it is neglected entirely or turned over to some junior clerk.
The result is that many companies aren't in a position to state posi-
tively that they have honest, legible copies of their records. Suppose
you consider the experience of one Los Angeles financial firm that
filmed 2,300,000 documents and carefully inspected the finished
product. As a result they had to find and retake 35,000 documents.
This finding and retaking cost more than the original run. When
one considers the task of incorporating the reruns into the original
film rolls, one may well become discouraged.
On the basis of the knowledge and, in some cases, just a "feeling"
that some officials have, many companies refuse to discard the
source documents and keep both film and paper. This situation may
change when and if more persons acquire confidence in microfilming.
The legality of microfilm is pretty well established, though ac-
tually to date no major case has been tried where the authenticity
of the film has been challenged. One good classic case may upset
this legal acceptance completely. Some judges retain their preroga-
tive to decide just what they will accept as evidence before their
particular courts. If you encounter one who has had a bad experi-
ence with film, he may reject it as primary evidence.
Another danger, at least, can be obviated at little extra expense;
that is the danger of losing the microfilm through some accident.
When a consulting firm was called in to reconstruct the records of
the city of Detroit after a serious fire, they were able to reconstruct
al~ the original paper documents, but all the microfilm was destroyed
completely. Copies of the film should have been stored at another
and distant location.
You will be told that film is very durable and could last for Soo
years. At the same time, the film producers will furnish a set of
specifications for film storage that will scare you. For instance, an
excess of moisture will ruin the film by sweating or mold, whereas a
very cold or dry atmosphere will cause the film to become brittle.
If the film is kept in a safe or vault of variable temperature, a slight
distortion will occur and ruin the film completely. There are also
enough instances of film being mislaid or stolen to make this a prob-
lem worthy of consideration. The answer to most of these problems
is merely to have another copy of the film stored elsewhere. This
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
352 THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
is an additional but minor expense. If you want to film for security
purposes and keep the originals to work with, they should be kept
at widely separated points, not in the same plant. The National
Fire Protection Association has published a fairly complete and
authoritative pamphlet entitled "Protection of Records" (Boston,
1947), which describes the disastrous effect of fire and heat on
acetate film.
The filming equipment companies are reaping a rich harvest as a
result of the possibility of atomic bombs destroying local records.
They have also developed very expensive duplicating equipment to
be kept at remote inland points in case of a major catastrophe. The
telephone company has an excellent program along these lines; and
in an operation such as theirs, which is company owned and op-
erated, it will probably work nicely. Some facts, however, were
developed on this subject in a meeting held a little while ago in San
Francisco. The speaker was one of the owners of an elaborate hole
in the ground for the storage of film and valuable documents. He
said they were in the process of installing an $80,000 reproduction
machine for the benefit of their clients. A representative of one of
the country's largest insurance companies pointed out that the
capability of the machine, if it worked 24 hours a day for 434 days
would barely suffice to duplicate his own company's film. Where
would that leave the other clients? Then too, there is the obvious
possibility that in the event of a great catastrophe, the Government
might commandeer the equipment.
Filming at best should be tightly controlled and strictly super-
vised to prevent indiscriminate reproduction. If one hasn't a firm
and well developed record management program, this is rather
difficult. And, frankly, in my wanderings, I find that comparatively
few concerns have really complete record management programs.
This is not a reflection on them because record management is still
too new a field, and management has to take first things first -the
production of goods and services. With the prevalent shortage of
competent junior executives, the record program has often to be
postponed.
Let us look at your problem as it now stands. You want record
controls, vital record programs, and space and equipment recovery.
You will have several requirements -low cost, flexibility, ability
to find what you want and read it when you get it, ease of duplica-
tion, rapid reference service, security, privacy, and protection from
fire and water damage. Let us see how you can get all of these re=
quirements immediately, in most cases completely, and at little
expense.
of
tic
Pa
sim
ava
ing
duc
res
rec
tha
me
thei
IO
the
Ver
rec
cen
inv
of tl
of rc
Ang~,
feet
I O,
stan
in L
But
kin
to h.
to yc
schec
It a~
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
11?1ty
kept
oval
and
ton,
on
as a
rds.
t to
I'he
and
op-
ere
ian
ole
He
ion
of
:he
iys
'r e
lus
:nt
;r-
~m
er
ly
~s.
ill
le
~f
THE CASE AGAINST MICROFILMING 353
The Federal Government has been the real pioneer in the field
of developing low cost record centers. These have resulted in f antas-
tic savings to the taxpayers. Many large firms such as U. S. Stcel,
Fold, DuPont, Richfield Oil, Lockheed Aircraft, Hughes Aircraft,
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph, to name a very few, have developed
similar low cost centers. What is good for these firms is readily
available to the smallest operator, no matter how limited his hold-
ings, and with comparable savings.
Irving Zitmore of Washington, D. C., who is probably the lead-
ing record management consultant in the country, once ran a survey
of the microfilming operation of the Federal Government and pro-
duced some drastic cutbacks in its filming programs with tremendous
resultant savings. He showed quite .conclusively that the Federal
record centers could handle original documents, with all their ad-
vantages over microfilm, for a period up to 7o years for no more
than it would cost to film them. Many record officers have shown
me that they could use either commercial record center facilities or
their own for at least 36 years for what filming would cost. Con-
sidering the fact that 9S% of your records have a life of less than
to years, you should investigate these commercial record centers if
they are available or give thought to developing them yourself if
they are not.
The policy of the Public Records Commission of the State of
Vermont, as early as 1954 at least, was to microfilm only permanent
records for the purpose of space saving alone. Records to be kept
less than 7o years are more economically stored in low-cost record
centers.
When I learned of this new policy in Vermont, I went out to
investigate. and found only one company in all the major cities west
of the Mississippi that has developed anything worthy of the name
of record centers. This was the Bekins Van and Storage Co. in Los
Angeles, which has converted one entire building of 125,000 square
feet into a center for over 400 local business firms including a
Io,ooo square foot record center for the Richfield Oil Co. I under-
stand that the company has started two other similar depositories
in Los Angeles and San Francisco and yet others in smaller cities. .
But so far as I know, it has the only worthwhile operation of its
kind in the record management field in the West. Its staff is eager
to help anyone interested in record management. It will explain
to you how you can throw away files by means of proper retention
schedules, or it will help you organize a record center of your own.
It apparently does not believe in keeping its trade secrets.
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
? ?
354 THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
This company has had to compete with microfilming on a cost
C
basis many times and has had to stand some pretty close scrutiny.
Actually, the low cost of storage it offers as compared with the cost
of microfilming is one of the least important considerations. In
to
addition to solving space problems, the company provides a refer-
ence service of great value. When you desire a file or information,
co
you merely telephone the center; and the file will be pulled imme-
th
diately, read to you over the phone, mailed to you, or forwarded
by messenger if time is pressing; or documents will be copied and
sh
forwarded -all for less than it would cost you to do it for your-
co
self. If you wish to work directly with the files, as when audits are
ac
necessary, you will find convenient desk space and telephone serv-
ice -all at no cost.
A large aircraft company has leased rz,ooo square feet of space
in a Bekins record center building, and it was packed solid when I
saw it. About t t girls were working there full time, and the super-
visor told me that they had never handled less than 2,soo refer-
ences amonth, together with a phenomenal amount of other record
center work. The list of companies who have turned to Bekins for
It
pre
cab
per
the answer to their needs reads like a Who's Who of California
business.
An
The Bekins people also have some suggestions to offer on the
matter of security copies of essential records. They cite several
spa
actual cases. In one engineering company, whenever a new drawing,
specification, or other vital paper affecting its operation is devel-
We
oped, acopy is mailed in a numbered envelope to the record center,
where it is filed in numerical order. This method of security storage
chec
has the advantage of keeping a copy of your most essential files
minE
immediately available if a disaster occurs, such as your plant burn-
req u
ing down. IV~ost filming operations provide only for periodic film-
the
ing, which means that the protection program always lags behind
refer
the creation of important papers. The document storage method, on
the other hand, fulfills every need you may have at the lowest pos-
~
y
sive
offer
sible cost and with the maximum of flexibility.
point
Another- instance is that of a Railway Clerks Federal Credit
Union, which instead of microfilming all its essential records, de-
prob
v
cided merely to mail a summary of its daily activities to the Bekins
ance
record center in Phoenix every night. The cost was $r per month
the
plus the postage, which was negligible. A monthly summary would
gray
permit the discarding of the daily reports so that they really would
the
not have to keep more than one month's reports on hand in addition
A
to assorted other vital documents with varying retention periods.
Moi
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
post
Ily.
'OSt
In
-er-
o n,
n e-
1ed
lnd
~ur-
are
:rv-
ace
nI
Ier-
~e r-
~rd
for
nia
the
ral
ng,
~el-
:er,
Ige
les
rn-
'.m-
nd
on
os-
dit
de-
ins
Ith
ald
old
on
ds.
THE CASE AGAINST MICROFILMING 355
Consider also the case of accounts receivable, whose loss by fire is
always a source of concern. How much do you suppose it would
cost to mail each day one copy of your invoices to a record center
to be kept for say 6 months (which is probably much longer than
necessary for most businesses) and then discarded. Most companies
could follow the practice of discarding after only a month because
their latest invoices cover everything that has gone before, such as
part payments or balances unpaid for one reason or another. I was
shown the account of one very large company doing just this; its
cost was $3 per month. Compare this with what you would pay for
accounts receivable insurance, which has some shortcomings though
it is excellent coverage.
Many business men of experience have given their opinions on
the subject of microfilming. A steel company executive commented
It may be much cheaper and easier to store the original record. The cost of
preparing, filming, inspecting, and indexing the contents of a four drawer
cabinet runs to $80 or more. For $80, the company could store the contents of
one cabinet in low cost storage equipment for 53 years in space renting for $I
per square foot.'
Another steel company executive was quoted, "It does not pay to
microfilm business records when you are concerned only with saving
space .and equipment. It is cheaper to store the original material
in a record center." And an oil company executive said:
We have discontinued entirely the use of microfilm as a tool in our records
control problem, although until a few months ago we microfilmed canceled
checks. After extensive cost studies covering records of uniform size and co-
mingled records of various sizes, we found that we could provide the space
required for a longer retention period of the original document for less than
the cost of microfilming. The original records are easier to locate and use in
reference work than the film, which requires the use of a reader, or the expen-
sive re-creation of the documents by use of sensitized paper. Microfilm does
offer protection from fire and great savings in space; but, from a cost stand-
point based on our own experience, it is not a magic solution for the record
problem.
William Benedon of Lockheed Aircraft said "Record mainten-
ance based upon the principles of record center operations provide
the best method for keeping records required under a record pro-
gram.... Using microfilm as a space saving device is no longer
the cheapest method to accomplish this goal."
An article in a leading business magazine recently described how
Monsanto Chemical had improved its record keeping program and,
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
356 THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST
among other things, how it had..abolished a $30,000 microfilming
program. And when Wayne County, Michigan, found that some of
its microfilm projects were not worth their cost, it cut them back
by discontinuing the filming of nine types of records at an annual
saving of $a,too. It also saved $6,000 that was going to be spent
on filming by merely shortening the retention period of certain
records.
*[Edito/.r note: A point that has not been explicitly made in this paper is that when
we compare the relative economy of microfilming and storage we must not leave out
of account the interest on the initial investment for microfilming. Interest is a real
charge whether we pay it directly on the specific investment or not.]
The Nation's Standard Paper Por Permanent Records
? l.leL~~~l 11eA V lllll~l~.?~
BYRON WESTON CO. LINEN
RECORD has been tested and ap-
proved by generations of public
and business record keepers. Made
.wholly of new white cotton and
linen clippings, it possesses to the
highest degree the strength, rul-
ing, writing, handling and eras-
ing qualities essential for endur-
ing satisfaction in bound or loose-
leaf records, documents and simi-
lar usages. For other records, se-
lect the right paper for any pur-
pose from the complete Weston
line of cotton fiber ledger, bond
and index papers. Write for com-
plete information.
BYRON WESTON COMPANY ? DALTON ? MASSACHUSETTS
? Makers of Papers for Public and Business Records -Since 1863
P:
By
De?
ISM
con
lenl
the
anc
whi
I
rev
tha
dor,
I
Go
age
rec~
m a;
for
ern
all
late
ma
poi
cur
con
Th
tivl
ingt~
in tl
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
VC)LUil1L 1~i
~~ e~,i A.,a Ls.~i'."4 . ,r'37
. 1c OJj~k.~S~ {,s~ '~~~4JtA~.~.~L~.hO.~~T ~ 1'
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
 ~t~A~/v ~~~N~-~EMEiYT" iPrvi.~ u~ .-- f=~:Q /r~~
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9
_vvvaa r~~~nya +++ ,,.~na~~+ ~ ~~.uyCa
i~/la!r strips of
microfilm usually require com-
plex and costly devices for re-
trieval of information from the ,'
micl~tfilm file. 't'ailored mechrn-
izcd imat;c systems employing'
thl~sr forms of microfilm are .the
nt.,~t expensive to install, and
ruttc in cost from $40,000 to
$l,>00,000.
C,+rrl-mountcrf film applica-
tions (commonly known as
ap/?rtrrrc Ards) require the least
maintenance effort. Use of aper-
htre cards permits changes, dele-
tions and additions to be made
to the microfilm file with minimal
rt Y, ;, +; l
effort. Unlike previously dc- Fig II.
scribed forms of microfilm, elaborate indexing is not
necessar~? since each card carries its own identifica-
tion as shown in Figure I. Highly skilled operators
.trc not required for production of duplicate cards or
bar?copy.
,tli~:rofiche (pronounced "microfeesh?). Micro-
fiche cards are transparencies on which 16mm of
35mm film frames, or a combination of both, are
mounted for viewing or reproduction purposes, as
shown in Figure II. These cards can be almost any
size, but are usually a standard 3x5, 4x6, 5x8 or
F.^i1t c;,rci ~;ize. Up to 140 micro-images can be re-
.~orded an one microfiche card. ? In general use,
microfiche permits greater file compression than is
possible with aperture cards due to the greater num-
ber of images which can be included in a single
microfiche card. 11'hen the maximum number of
images arc? contained in one microfiche card, the
cost per image is substantially less than it is for an
aperture card where the number of images is limited
to 16. This is valid only if the total capacity of
each microfiche card is used.
Cost of 1icrofilm Applications
Them is a wide range of equipment available for
ntienlfilnJ npplications and the variations in cost are
eyually wide. For complex systems which require
mechanized and sophisticated equipment, the total
installation cost may be over $1.5 millions. On the
other hand, for a relatively simple application the
A 4" x G" Microfiche Card (?~ actual Suer
cost of equipment and material may be less than
$1,000. All you need is aviewer-printer, if you sub-
scribe to one of the many microfilm services no?
available commercially. These commercial organi-
zations offer a variety of services ranging from tfie
filming of records to providing engineering and
technical data in convenient microfilm forms.
?
Obviously, care must be exercised in selecting
uses for microfilm. Many systems are expensive,
and sometimes potential applications simply will not
provide an adequate return on the investment.
The conditions necessary for a successful ap~tli-
cation, can only be ignored at considerable risk. i'or
example, a microfilm application which is predicated
solely upon the expectation of savings on file space
for completed or refired records may prove a gre~+t
disappointment. The savings in space will conlpr n
sate fot the cost of the microfilm system only i{ the
space cost is very high and this condition usually
exists only when active records are maintained in
highly desirable space and competition for occupancy'
is keen or when the size of the file is truly massive.
This caution against the possibility of unprofit-
able applicatlons should not discourage careful
consideration to the use of microfilm systems.
Money can be made from microfilm and the initial
investment doesn't necessarily have to be large.
nO STl1cE ENO rECS P~In
U.1. OOV [RNMfNT PRINTING OrrlCr
.II ii - l~ J~ {
': {
i
~i ii 7f
,
'
ry ~
r
Ue~1 ~__; l
i i. .9 1 J i
^
..~ ~
- {- --T
. r- r-- - 'r r--
._. r . _~ .. i 4 ~ r ~ i - ~r i -
-
"J I
' i I l i J 1
-,_nr..-.r .~r""1f
? I
~ Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/28 :CIA-RDP73-004028000100220001-9