Mary Kalinyak

Prof Hamerly

Lis 799

16 December 2021

Cataloging Microfilm at the Paris-Bourbon County Library

Libraries across the country use microfilm to archive and preserve local history. However

as technology progresses and more libraries digitize their microfilm collections, microfilm may

someday be completely phased out of use. Larger libraries with multiple branches have the

budget to do this necessary digitization, but smaller independent libraries with much smaller

budgets may not be able to do this easily or at all. The Paris-Bourbon County library is one of

these smaller libraries, with a collection of microfilm that is not available online. My biggest

project during my time at this library was to go though this collection of microfilm and catalogue

it for the Paris-Bourbon County library. Not only had the collection not been digitized, but it had

also not been catalogued into the library’s internal OPAC system. During the COVID-19

pandemic, while the library was shut down to visitors, this flaw in their internal system was even

more pronounced. Now, with the collection cataloged, access to the unique local history and

genealogy of Bourbon County has become greater. My goal here is to express the impact that this

cataloging project had on the Paris-Bourbon Library as a whole, and on the local community of

Bourbon County Kentucky.

Historically, libraries have served as archives for various types of documents, including

newspapers. Storing these documents allows for preservation of important pieces of history.

However, storing large numbers of newspapers pose numerous challenges. Newspapers are

highly susceptible to damage from water, fire, or mold, causing the information they hold to be
lost forever. Additionally, after the number of newspapers being published multiplied in the 19th

century, libraries found it increasingly hard to store them in a way that both protected against

decay and was able to be accessed (Saunders, 134). The solution came in the early 20th century,

as technological advancements invented microfilms, which are film reels that store large

numbers of records. Libraries first started using this technology in 1939, and it became popular

in the 1940s (Saunders, 134). Microfilms are more durable than newspapers, and storing them

occupies less space as well. However, they are not without problems as well. Microfilms are

vulnerable to chemical degradation, especially as they age (Engelson, McLaughlin, & Boston,

n.p.). Additionally, the more that they are handled, the more damaged they become, like other

types of film negatives (Correa, 3). This decay results “in a tremendous loss of information in

libraries and archives across the world.” (Plaisance, n.p.)

Further advancements in technology have posed another solution to this problem.

Libraries have been digitizing their collections of microfilms, which is a process that involves

scanning the images from the roll of microfilm and making them available through an online

database. For the most part, this is regarded as “ a suitable, even desirable replacement for

ephemeral and often increasingly fragile matter like print newspapers and for microfilm

collections nearing the end of their usable (and legible) lifespans.” (Saunders, 134). Unlike

newspapers or microfilm, data available through the internet will not decay with use (Astle &

Muir, 68). Additionally, storing records in a database allows for increased accessibility for

patrons, even beyond the hours or locations that the library is able to serve. The collection is

available constantly (Posgate, n.p.). This has been used with great success in not just libraries,

but “museums, galleries, and archives, so that people who cannot readily visit these institutions

in person can explore their holdings” (Prescott, n.p.). Digitalization also allows for ease of
access. With adequate organizing, “a single digital image can in theory be easily located,

whereas the location of microfilms and the process of winding through the reel of film is very

time-consuming” (Prescott, n.p.). At the Paris-Bourbon County Library, the way to sort through

the microfilms is to use the microfilm reader. If a patron were looking for a newspaper article

from a certain day, the librarian would first find the microfilm labelled with the year on it. Then,

that roll of microfilm goes into the microfilm reader and the librarian has to manually scroll

through each date until they get to the date that the patron is looking for. In the modern digital

world, it is not difficult to imagine being able to simply click a link and be taken to the desired

information.

However, this advantage does require an extensive amount of work on the part of the

librarians. Every image needs to be categorized according to its contents and organized in a way

that it can be accessed later. Creating a collection that is easily searchable through a search

engine requires even more documentation to establish. The process of modern digitization

assumes that the library also has the capacity to organize their microfilms, which is not always

correct. Organizing and documenting metadata into a form that is usable is a very

time-consuming and difficult process. Some manuals warn that this process “demands the

greatest cost in the form of “data administration and management”” (Correa, 3).

The scanning process is complicated further based on the type of document being

preserved. For some, like contemporary works of literature or newspapers, the important thing to

capture is the text on the page. Digitizing these resources can be done simply by logging the text

on the page. There are several projects underway aimed at preserving documents through this

method. One famous example is Google Books, which records the text written in books and

stores it in a database (Prescott, n.p.). However, that method of digitization is not adequate for all
documents. Some older texts include important visual aspects, like handwriting or imagery, and

those are more difficult to digitize (Prescott, n.p.). Others have layers of information that require

complex tests to document (Saunders, 133). If the unique information is not adequately captured,

the collection will suffer for the loss, the same as if they had lost the document itself.

The problem with more advanced preservation techniques, of course, is their cost.

“Digitization—whether mass or slow—is expensive, [and] resources are limited,” (Prescott,

n.p.). There are numerous contractors that offer to complete the process for smaller libraries that

may not be able to spare the worker needed to accomplish the task, but they may be too

expensive. To illustrate what the process costs, the Paris-Bourbon County has a record of 1,039

rolls of microfilm in their collection. One estimate says that, to simply scan the images from the

microfilm onto a computer, it would cost between $20 and $80 per roll, depending on the size of

the roll. For Bourbon County to outsource their microfilm project, it would cost between $20,780

and $83,120 (How, n.p.). For that company to provide any amount of organizing to make the

database usable would be an additional cost on top of that. The total annual expenditures for the

Paris-Bourbon County Public Library for the fiscal year of 2020-2021 was $1,597,118, meaning

that contracting a service to scan the documents would make up between 1 and 5% of the budget

(Paris-Bourbon, n.p.). This may not seem like a large expense, but spending that amount of

money on that project means that the library would not be able to fund other projects and may

need to cut back on the services that they offer their patrons.

The information that the microfilms contain, however, is priceless. At the Paris-Bourbon

County Public Library, the microfilm collection includes local history in the form of multiple

local newspapers dating back as far as the 1800s, deeds and real estate dating back to the 1700s,

and centuries worth of birth, marriage, and death certificates. These documents are vital to
understanding the rich history of Bourbon County and to tracking the families that have lived

there for generations. In addition, the librarian at the Paris-Bourbon County Public Library in

charge of the genealogy project spoke about how the information contained there includes

information from not just Bourbon County itself but also history from eastern Kentucky and

Appalachia, as Bourbon County used to encompass those locations as well (Dungan, n.p.). If the

microfilms were to be lost or damaged due to overuse, a large section of Kentucky’s history and

culture would go with it.

Throughout my time studying to be a librarian, working with microfilms is not

something that I really considered. A lot of our education focuses more on collections of books

or similar media, not on the way that historical documents are stored at the library. While I was

doing my practicum at the Paris-Bourbon County Public Library, I worked alongside Suzanne

Dungan, the librarian in charge of maintaining and utilizing the microfilm collection. She helped

me understand the importance of microfilms for documenting local history, and how significant

access to that history is for the patrons of the library. Going forward, as I continue to seek work

at other public libraries, I hope to be in a position to advocate for the digitization of microfilms at

those libraries as well. I think, for libraries that have extensive collections of local history that

cannot be found anywhere else, especially rural libraries like the Paris-Bourbon County Public

Library, preservation through digitization should be a priority to ensure that history is not lost.
 Works Cited

Correa, Dale J. "Digitization: Does it always improve access to rare books and special
collections?." Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture 45.4 (2017): 177-179.

Dungan, Suzanne. Interview. Conducted by Mary Kalinyak December 1, 2021.

Engelson, Leslie, Sean J. McLaughlin, and A. J. Boston. "Local History Unbridled: Anecdotal
Reflection in Bringing Digitized Microfilm to Digital Commons." (2019).

“How Much Does Microfilm Digitization Cost? (Microfilm/Microfiche/Aperture Cards)” BMI

Imaging, BMI Imaging, 2021,
https://bmiimaging.com/resources/how-much-does-microfilm-digitization-cost/

Paris-Bourbon County Public Library Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in

Fund Balance. Paris-Bourbon County Public Library, November 17, 2021.

Plaisance, Heather C. "What’s that smell? Managing deteriorating microfilm collections in

libraries and archives." Codex: the Journal of the Louisiana Chapter of the ACRL 6.1 (2021):
77-95.

Posgate, Jess. "From microfilm to megabytes: Digitizing community newspaper collections."

BCLA Browser: Linking the Library Landscape 4.4 (2012).

Prescott, Andrew, and Lorna M. Hughes. "Why do we digitize? The case for slow digitization."
Archive Journal (2018).

Saunders, Richard L. "Too late now: Libraries’ intertwined challenges of newspaper morgues,
microfilm, and digitization." RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural
Heritage 16.2 (2015): 127-140.

Tanner, Simon, and Marilyn Deegan. "Inspiring research, inspiring scholarship." (2010).