In his post Larry Medina states:

>I've never seen a case where the adhesive has caused problems, and the
>cards themselves (at least those produced and used post 1970s) were
>typically not a source/cause of damage.  Most of the cases I've seen have
>involved "human error", such as the mixing of diazo/silver film, use of
>rubber bands to bundle bunches of film, storing cards in cardboard boxes,
>use of improper materials as dividers and out cards, wrapping groups of
>cards in improper paper/material for sorting, etc.

I have to agree with Larry on the issue of film adhesive on aperture cards
causing OFF GASSING. I also agree with the HUMAN ERROR issues Larry raises.


One thing that is of concern in respect of aperture cards is the
degeneration and the fading of images mounted in camera cards, please note I
did not say aperture cards as there is a difference. I have experience the
loss or reduction in quality of the 35 mm microfilm with camera cards
produced on self processing cameras and not from the film which was produced
originally on 35 mm x 30.3 m [100 foot] roll film stock and the then mounted
in aperture cards, either the adhesive or the envelope or jacket type from
Microseal.

A number of manufacturers produced self processing 35 mm engineering drawing
cameras with 3M (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co) the most prominent
with their models 2300, 2600 and later the 2800 which was made by SMA Schaut
of Germany and the self processing engineering drawing cameras from Microbox
of Germany & SMA Schaut plus several other smaller manufacturers.

The self processing camera utilised unexposed film already mounted in Camera
Cards which were the adhesive type, plus you could in some model index the
card with typed information and or a Hollerith punched ID. The image
[usually an engineering drawing, map or plan up to Din A0 or American E in
paper size) was exposed to the film in the camera head and then it was
transported to a processing station [also within the camera head] where it
was clamped in place and sprayed with developer, fixer and lastly water. It
was a great concept and much less involved than the previous process where
the image was exposed onto 35 mm roll film and then processed in the usual
way in a standard microfilm processor and then cut into 35 mm chips and hand
or machine mounted into the aperture cards of either the adhesive or
envelope type.

I have never experienced problems with 35 mm aperture cards created in the
more manual aperture card process produced from 35 mm roll film process in
the usual standard processor before mounting.

The same cannot be said of the camera card produced in the various self
processor cameras.

The problem with the camera card produced in the various self processor
cameras was and is that they never received any quality assurance after
production. The Microbox self processor camera in particular was operator's
nightmare with the developer and fixer jets clogging up after only several
hours [or less] of production. The 3M 2300 and 2600 I understand had similar
issues. The SMA Schaut and the 3M 2800 version were no angels either but
were far superior in the processing operation to the earlier models.

I am aware of these types of cameras being operated by untrained personnel
and in some instances serviced by untrained service personnel where no water
was flowing in the cameras process or chamber and so no washing was being
carried out on the film in the camera card.

I have advised several parties with fading or degrading camera cards from
self processing cameras to either scan the image now before it is too late
and they disappear altogether or to duplicate the camera card to a diazo
first so see if the image quality can be improved before scanning.

I know, diazo is not long lasting or archival in nature due to the diazo
salts affecting the film plus other issues but duplication to Sepia, Black
or Blue Black in that order and not Blue Diazo film can and most instances
can improve the image left on the fading card before it is scanned.

I trust that this information may be of value to this discussion.

NOTE: My experience in this area.

I was involved for 22 years in the running of a Microfilm Bureau where we
filmed engineering drawing, map or plans as a major component of our
operations. From the mid 1980's to 1998 I personally operated a self
processing 35 mm camera in our bureau operations for a limited period of
time until the issues of the lack of washing of the camera cards became
apparent. In addition I also sold, installed and maintained as a technical
person several of the SMA Schaut self processing cameras. I can advise that
none of my clients where we had SMA Schaut self processing cameras installed
have ever experienced the fading or deterioration of the camera card film.
That said there are number of organisations in our area that have
experienced the fading or deterioration of the camera card film in their
collection of microfilmed engineering drawings produced on these types of
cameras.

Keep Microfilming as yes it can last 100 plus years if you do it right in
the first place and you also keep the film at 10 degrees centigrade and in
the dark and under controlled humidity conditions and never use the film in
a reader or reader printer and only use it to produce your second generation
intermediate copy if it becomes damaged.

The golden rule with microfilm is that you have three copies, the first is
held as stated above then the second copy is held at 20 degrees centigrade
and in  the dark and under controlled humidity conditions and only used to
make working copies as required, and the third copy is the one you keep in
the office or operational environment and read it or print from it or
duplicate from it and when it gets tired and torn and worn you make another
working copy from the second level film and the original camera produced
negative silver halide film stays safe and sound and very cold in the dark.

Happy Microfilming into the future! But keep an eye on your self process or
camera operations.

By the way, original drawings no matter what type of material they have been
produce on should, no, must be stored flat in a controlled temperature and
humidity environment. If you do need to roll the drawing for a temporary
period for transport etc it should always be rolled with the surface with
the image on outwards and not inwards. Give it a try and see the results.

Laurie

Mr Daniel Lawrance [Laurie] Varendorff, ARMA
Member of the Western Australian Government - State Records Commission (SRC)
- Digital Records Working Group (DRWG).
Specialist Technical Writer on Records and Information Management (RIM) and
related subjects, available for hire.
Published Articles available @ http://www.microfilm.net.au/articles.shtml
A Records Management Professional, and proud of the fact!
Consultant/Trainer/Tutor/Presenter: Records and Information Management
Imaging and Micrographic Specialist: 31 years experience

Representing: Digital Microfilm Equipment - DME

You may care to visit our web site @  Digital Microfilm Equipment (DME)
<http://www.microfilm.net.au/>  - For all things Micrographic
Alternatively email us @  [log in to unmask]
Our URL is  www.microfilm.net.au <http://www.microfilm.net.au/>

The Varendorff Consultancy ABN: 77 836 801 165
PO Box 6497 East Perth, Western Australia 6892 - AUSTRALIA
PHONE: +61 [0]8 9291 6925 - MOBILE: +61 [0]417 094 147
EMAIL:            [log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance