|
Dwight;
I would just do the silver dupe but that is base on cost and your ability
to control the film's future storage environment.
John
> [Original Message]
> From: WALLIS Dwight D <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2/22/2006 3:05:38 PM
> Subject: [RM] Polysulfide Treatment of Redox Contaminated Microfilm
>
> We are engaged in the on-going process of reviewing a rather large
> library of microfilm for either destruction or preservation. A portion
> of our microfilm (relatively small, thank goodness) has been
> contaminated with redox. In most cases, the damage is fairly limited,
> often to the leader film, or to a few frames on the roll.
>
> Our policy has been to silver duplicate this film, polysulfide treat the
> silver duplicate, use that for our security copy, and discard the
> original. Given the limited damage, and the growing cost of both silver
> duplication and brown-toning, can anyone comment on the wisdom of
> polysulfide treating the original film? Would this stop the damage from
> spreading, and create a viable preservation copy, or are we better off
> sticking with our original silver duplication/treatment plan? Note that
> on the advice of our state archives, we are polysulfiding original
> uncontaminated film.
>
> Dwight Wallis, CRM
> Records Administrator
> Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution & Stores
> (FREDS)
> 1620 SE 190th Avenue
> Portland OR 97233
> phone: (503)988-3741
> fax: (503)988-3754
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
