Lyle, I completely agree with your points on how access is allowing
researchers to see and use more resources than ever before.  And I also
agree that the cost of copies, if reasonably priced, will see institutions
with revenue to continue their digitization.  The Lincoln Archives project
is now providing free access to the website, but if the user wants hard
copies, it will cost them $1.50 per page.  These are in color, 450 dpi
resolution image.  This cost pays for the scanning, conversion, and storage
of the images on the server.  Compared to having to physically visit the
National Archives, pay for travel and lodging, the cost is minimal.

Charging outrageous prices for microfilm on DVD is actually hurting the
institutions.  For example, the National Archives is now charging $138 for
microfilm, and the same price for the images on DVD.  So who is buying the
product.  No one.  If they charged a reasonable price $35 or less for the
DVD, they would get orders and make the conversion worth the price,
especially for those outside of the country.

As to digitizing from microfilm.  No one wants to look at microfilm on a
viewer, so why would they want to look at it on a computer screen?  If the
libraries and institutions are actually trying to spend their money wisely,
digitizing the documents in color, in their original state, at a high
resolution, not only meets preserving the document as it should be, but
providing valuable data that cannot be provided with grayscale black and
white images.  19th century Civil War era documents contain data on red and
blue ink that is lost with microfilm.  I know that a lot of archivists and
librarians out there think that the text is good enough.  The color is not
important.  Shame on them.

If money is limited, do it right, and do it once.  Digitizing microfilm, is
going the cheap and dirty route, in the end, not doing anything to preserve
the records, nor to provide the researchers with accurate data.
Karen


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Lyle E. Browning <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> It is a question of whether the holding bodies see themselves as guardians
> of information or disseminators of information for the better use of us
> all. High copy prices have restrained research for years. Copy prices had
> risen to very high levels for privately funded researchers. The advent of
> digital cameras and scanners meant that the information could be retained
> for later use. I also think that the quality of research would be higher as
> the originals versus the inevitably distilled notes would show a better
> result. In my view, it is a dubious proposition that the holding body would
> also retain copyright over the images, unless that particular item was
> unique. The internet has allowed me to accumulate via Google, Project
> Gutenberg and others a far wider and better set of background materials
> than I could EVER otherwise have managed, even in three lifetimes. As a
> result, often amazingly obscure publications are available to download that
> allow folks on a limited budget to go farther with their research than
> otherwise would be possible.
>
> The British model hinders research and is far more restrictive on what
> constitutes fair use than in the USA. Scrooges is the term that has been
> used with every copy costing far more than perceived worth.
>
> And I might point out that digital cameras cause less damage to
> publications than do photocopiers as they need only be opened to 90° rather
> than flattened. The inevitable bulge caused by the binding stress when
> flattened is eliminated with the 90° approach. That might be something to
> be emphasized in the holding bodies.
>
> I also understand that holding bodies have expenses. I have suggested to
> the Library of VA that for each digital copy taken, that the same be placed
> in their computers. In the course of a few years, an amazing amount of
> material would be digitized that otherwise would remain in microfilm.
> Thankfully, a work-around with digital copies of microfilm has replaced the
> MF readers. But those had their benefits as, in addition to producing
> vertigo, they also allowed one's right arm to be built up to amazing
> proportions;)
>
> I proposed about 15 years ago that the Archeological Society of VA
> digitize its Quarterly Bulletins. Along with Special Publications, we have
> over $70k tied up in paper that takes enormous space for what we have
> available. The stick drives are priced at an intentionally low figure and
> would have been lower had not the USPS envelope scanners not stripped out
> the drives. We have compared sales figures with hard copies versus digital
> and there is no comparison, as they say. Digital copies are moving quickly,
> hard copies are moving for a very few, albeit slowly, but for most, one
> sale per 5 years. We are looking at transitioning from hard copies as we
> run out of some to a full digital offering and have offered hard copies
> gratis. But ASV's mission is the dissemination of information so that it
> can be used.
>
> Lyle Browning
>
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Paul Heinegg wrote:
>
> > The Maryland Archives has mostly completed the conversion of their
> microfilm to CDs. They helped pay for the conversion by selling CDs at $60
> each. (The price may be a bit  higher now. They have raised it gradually
> from $20 when they first started about ten years ago to $60 as of three or
> four years ago).
> > All Maryland deeds are available on-line in PDF from any computer.
> > Paul
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> > http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html