[PADG:1383] another QC alert for Heritage Microfilm?

["Jane Cullinane" <JCullinane@xxxxxxxxx>]

Don Litzer posted this to the listserv "genealib." I thought the participants in the Micropublishers Discussion Group would be interested. I'm going to check our receipts from Heritage. Any reply to PADG will not be seen by Mr. Litzer, please cc him at dlitzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When he gave permission to re-post his message, Mr. Litzer asked that we remember his emphasis is to communicate his concerns. "I don't want to appear to be unduly casting aspersions on Heritage Microfilm, but simply express my concerns constructively for the benefit of all interested parties."
--Jane F. Cullinane
Preservation Librarian
Connecticut State Library
jcullinane@xxxxxxxxx

>>>> Don Litzer <dlitzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 7/11/01  6:55 PM >>>
Dear Assembled,

Some time ago, Anita Doering from La Crosse (WI) Public Library alerted the list to quality control problems she had encountered with newspaper
microfilm produced by Heritage Microfilm of Cedar Rapids, IA...indeed, at that time, upon checking, I found some mediocre-quality film of our local
paper in our collection, and Heritage was very cooperative in replacing our marginal film with better quality copies.

The other day I was helping a patron find some obituaries in microfilms of April 2001 issues of our local paper, and was surprised to again find mediocre-quality images, to the extent that for regular type sized print, individual letters were broken and appeared almost to be double-imaged, and smaller letters such as classified ads were too faint--embarrassed, I went into our basement and copied the obits for our patron from our backup print copy!

I found this level of quality, which I would term fair to poor, in January, February, March and April 2001 microfilms of our local paper, the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

I would judge the image quality in the months immediately preceding this period, roughly September to December 2000, and in May 2001 (the most
recent film we've received) as good to fair, i.e., marginally acceptable but not exceptional...letters in regular type size were intact and readable, but classified-sized print was more difficult to read than expected--and of lower quality overall than films prior to September 2000.

Has anyone else experienced these problems?  I've contacted Heritage regarding the April 2001 roll I initially encountered, and Linda Hamilton
cheerfully promised to replace that roll...however, since then I completed the broader QC check, and left Linda a message about the results...and she hasn't yet replied to THAT voice mail (maybe got a deserved weekend off).

Also, could anyone explain to me what's up with the Kodak Brown Toner that is now being used for these newspapers?  Is my memory incorrect or was black toner used formerly?  It seems to me that by using brown toner, there's a lot less room for error in producing copies--if the brown isn't
REALLY dark, it easily can become difficult to read.  Or maybe it's just my eyesight starting to go haywire after years of staring at microfilm myself:)

Would appreciate any feedback on this--not as an indictment of anyone, but what I hope may be a useful heads up!

Don Litzer
Head of Adult Services
McMillan Memorial Library
490 E. Grand Avenue
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
(715) 423-1040

"Happiness = Reality - Expectations"