 Prior to digitization, microfilm was considered the primary method of copying, circulating, and preserving historical records. The National Archives and Records Administration, also referred to by its acronym NARA, was established in 1934, and microfilming at NARA began not long after, as depicted in these images from 1937 and 1942. Images were initially captured by microfilm cameras onto film. The first generation from the camera is referred to as the master negative, and was usually black and white silver halide. The master negative is used once to make a duplicate negative, or printing master, and then stored away for preservation. The duplicate negative was also usually silver halide, and was used to generate access copies. The access copies could be either positive or negative, and could be on various types of film, including silver halide, diazo, and vesicular. To date, NARA's holdings include approximately two million reels of microfilm on both acetate and polyester. Polyester is usually selected for modern preservation copies, due to its superior stability over acetate. Majority of our holdings are silver halide, but we do have some diazo and vesicular microfilm and microfiche. Our microfilm originates from federal agencies that transfer their records to NARA on microfilm, and NARA also creates its own microfilm for publication, preservation, and access. In recent years, the process of microfilming has turned away from direct camera capture on film to digital image capture via camera or scanner, and output of digital files onto microfilm, also referred to as computer output microfilm, or COM. In addition to computer output microfilm, NARA's reformatting lab at the St. Louis Preservation Division still has the capacity to make direct film-to-film duplicates on both silver halide and vesicular microfilm, primarily to replace reference copies as they break. The vesicular film is still processed in-house in St. Louis, whereas the silver film is now sent out for processing by a contractor. NARA facilities in the Washington area are no longer producing microfilm, but our reformatting lab in College Park, Maryland still does scan microfilm for access and preservation. The development of the first microfilm scanner in 1989 by Mechel Technologies led to current preservation practices of converting microfilm, feesh, and aperture cards to digital images via specialized scanners. Many records on microfilm are currently being digitized for access and preservation, both through NARA and through digital partners working with NARA using specialized scanners, such as those by Mechel and NextScan. Microfilm selected for digitization usually contains information that is highly requested for research or use, or the film is deteriorating and requires reformatting before the information is lost. Prior to digitization, the microfilm is inspected, and any reels with conditioned issues or concerns are flagged for conservation. As a result, a number of reels from Evacitate Microfilm have come to the conservation lab for examination and treatment to remedy blocked film, poor quality splices, tape and labels obscuring information, surface dirt, and tears. I will be showing some examples of these deterioration issues and treatments with you today. Here is an example of film where a frame is scratched out. Unfortunately, there is often no indication of why the image was removed and no way to retain the data that is lost. This is an example of a label placed over several image frames obscuring the information. And an example of a sticker that may be flagging information on one frame, but obscuring information on the adjacent frame. And I've also encountered tape of all types and colors placed on film that completely blocks frames of information. In some cases, the tape or label adhesive is interacted with the film, creating permanent staining and or changes in the color of the film, such as this example where striated tape was used. Other issues include silver mirroring, fingerprints, and dirt. Some films I've examined were significantly deteriorated with very high acidity levels, distortion, channeling, brittleness, and breakage. Unfortunately, the films pictured here cannot be safely unwound for the real for access. Discoloration of the film base resulting from reformation of anti-halation dye in the film, seen here as the aqua color, was observed with some of our INS immigration record microfilm that came from states and US territories with fairly humid climates. The film also had high levels of acidity, distortion, and some blocking, likely due to high humidity storage where the film originated from. In some cases, staples were used to repair broken sections of film instead of splicing tape or heat splicing. The staples can rest over time and stain the film in addition to leaving holes. This is an example of stapled film that was badly stained and partially blocked as a result of moisture. Usually staples can be removed by carefully unfolding them with micro-spatula. When possible, a piece of polyester is placed under the staple to minimize any abrasion of the film. The film can then be respliced with archival splicing tape. In most cases, the staining cannot be reduced. Pressure-sensitive tape, stickers, and labels can often be removed from the film with the aid of heat. I use a Leister hot air tool on a very low setting and a thin micro-spatula to separate the tape. The Leister is kept a few inches away from the film at all times. With our current workstation setup, I find it difficult to be able to wait the film in place so it cannot move during tape removal treatment. So I usually work alongside a colleague who helps hold the film and tools as needed. Here, Richard Hannet and I are removing yellow electrical type tape from a rule of film using the Leister and a micro-spatula. The residual tape adhesive was then removed via ethanol applied with cotton swabs. And here's the film before treatment on the top and after treatment on the bottom. This is an example of a similar treatment in which a label was removed and encapsulated in polyester in order to be retained with the film reel. The label adhesive had interacted with the film, resulting in the blue-purple staining. Here's an example where the front coated surface of a similar label became adhered to the next wrap of film on the reel. Fortunately, the number on the label remained intact and the white residue that transferred from the label was able to be removed with ethanol. Adhesive migration from tape or labels placed on microfilm can cause blocking of the film. In many cases, the film can be separated mechanically, although heat may be needed to soften the adhesive. In this example, the pressure-sensitive tape carrier had failed and was easily peeled away from the film mechanically without heat. However, the yellowed adhesive on the film remained slightly tacky as shown in the top right image. The bottom right image shows the film after the adhesive was able to be safely removed with ethanol. We have no efficient or safe way to clean entire reels of microfilm in the DC area, so film is only cleaned in the conservation lab when absolutely necessary and then usually only with ethanol applied by cotton swabs in local areas. When using ethanol for cleaning and adhesive removal, I have occasionally observed dye coming off the film in addition to dirt, but this has not resulted in noticeable visual change of the film base color. Removing dirt and adhesive from microfilm with ethanol and cotton swabs can also sometimes result in some scratching of the film base, particularly if the film is deteriorated. However, in consultation with custodial archivists, we've determined that this is an accepted level of risk of damage in order to remove dirt and adhesives obscuring the film image. Heat splices do break over time and tape splices discolor and fail. These are repaired in conservation as needed using clear archival pressure-sensitive splicing tape that passes the PAT test. A splicer tool is used to align the film and the tape is applied vertically to each side of the film and cut by the blades of the splicer so as to be as close to the film edges as possible without nicking the film. This is an example of a poor quality tape splice on the left and replacement with archival splicing tape on the right. In addition to repairing broken splices, torn film requires repair in order to safely be run through the scanner. Tares are repaired with archival splicing tape placed on both sides of the film. In this example, the torn bottom edge of film was previously mended by taping a piece of polyester to one side to support it and fill the loss. The polyester was unfortunately not taped flush to the film and only taped in select areas so it was not secured all along the loss and some buckling was present. We were concerned that the film was too thick with the polyester to be run through the scanner and then a buckled area might get jammed in the scanner tearing the film further. The old repair was removed with the lister. A piece of archival splicing tape was then placed across the film horizontally on each side and excess tape trimmed to create an even line with the top and bottom of the film. The tape alone was thick enough to adequately fill the loss and the film was able to be scanned. This is another example of a repair in which a small fragment was separated and had become curled and slightly brittle. In order to flatten the fragment so that it could be mended, the fragment was passively humidified in a tray and then flattened in a pressing stack between smooth hollytex, blotters, and corrugated board underweight. Shortly into the humidification process, the fragment turned aqua blue in color believed to be the result of anti-halation dye reforming. It may be possible to remove the color by making the film alkaline, but doing so could deteriorate the film further and was not attempted. The flattened fragment was aligned as best as possible and mended with archival splicing tape. Occasionally we have film from our holdings that is discovered loose in cans or loose in boxes among textual paper records. Often this film is brought to our attention by researchers who discover the film or archivists processing the records. This is an example of one of 12 reels of film found loose in cans that was discovered by a researcher. Several of the cans had original cloth tapes sealing them. In this case the film will be put on reels and boxed and the information from each can retained. We occasionally encounter large 1,000 foot reels on hubs that cannot be easily handled and these require a special holder in order to be scanned for access. With smaller strips of film we may have the film scanned and then cut the film into strips and sleeve it in polypropylene pages like jacketed microfilm. This is an example of a few small rolls of microfilm that were found pressed among folders of documents. The film was able to be passively humidified in a chamber for 68 hours to safely unroll it. Small squares of plexiglass covered with holotex were used to weight the film in the chamber as it was slowly unrolled. In verification the film is checked frequently to ensure it does not stick to itself or to the holotex. The film was then flattened under weight in a pressing stack consisting of holotex blotter and corrugated board. In order to scan the film polyester leader and ender were attached to each section of the film. Following scanning the polyester leader was removed and the film cut so it could be sleeved in polypropylene pages and housed in the box of textual documents. Recently four wheels of deteriorated acetate silver gelatin microfilm from archival operations in St. Louis came to the conservation lab as a pilot project to determine if the film might be able to be treated so that it can be scanned. While conventional imaging via microfilm scanner is not possible due to the distortion of the film it is technically feasible for NARA's reformatting lab in St. Louis to image a few frames of film at a time and use the digital images to produce new silver gelatin masters as a preservation copy. This microfilm is the only existing copy of these records and there is an estimated 63 cubic feet of film approximately 5,000 reels and 90% of which is believed to be in similar condition. Each reel has noticeable vinegar odor shrinkage and distortion. Significant channeling and breakage is present on two of the reels while the other two appear to be distorted and slightly more flexible. As an initial test a small section of approximately 3 to 4 inches was cut from the leader of each reel passively humidified in a humidity chamber for 6 to 8 hours and flattened under weight in a pressing stack for a minimum of 2 days. Each section of film was able to be flattened following treatment although film from the two channeled reels remain channeled following flattening. Before and after images for two of the reels are shown here. The channeling will likely reduce image quality even if the film is able to be scanned. Despite being flat the film sections remain brittle and require careful handling. I proceeded to treat one of the reels that was in slightly better condition first and examined the results before determining whether or not to proceed with treatment on any other reels. The first reel of film was able to be successfully cut into sections humidified and flattened as shown in these before and after images. Although this treatment is promising it is time consuming and may not be feasible for the entire series. Since conservation has become more involved in microfilm preservation we've been able to implement better practices for repairing and handling microfilm across NARA. For years it had become common practice in the reformatting lab to use unprocessed microfilm as leader film. The unprocessed film is used is often red or yellow in color so it can be easily identifiable such as this example. The chemicals present in unprocessed film are not good for being in direct contact with our microfilm records. We are now using clear archival quality polyester lever attached with clear archival pressure sensitive splicing tape that passes the PAT test. Following scanning the polyester leader is removed when possible to minimize risk of adhesive migration and blocking from the splicing tape. However there are still challenges ahead. Microfilm housed with textual records is usually kept in our general stack conditions and while conditions are well controlled around 65 degrees Fahrenheit and 35% RH acetate film really requires cold storage for long term preservation. Unfortunately often the first indication that acetate film may be interfiled with textual paper documents is that a noticeable vinegar odor is detected coming from the box or stack area. At this point the film is already deteriorating and if we're lucky it can still be scanned, duplicated or put into cold storage. At present it is NARA's policy not to separate the textual microfilm from the associated paper records even to move the film to cold storage unless the entire box or series is on film. Cold storage space is also at a premium and is less likely that microfilm records will be relocated to cold storage if a paper copy in good condition exists. Like other non-text media it is also becoming more difficult and expensive to obtain equipment needed to examine, repair and access microfilm. Since our reformatting lab has discontinued microfilm production in the Washington area we've tried to retain as much viewing workstation and splicing equipment as possible for the conservation lab as it has fallen on conservation to examine and repair microfilm in most cases. In the near future we are hoping to get a viewing workstation in place in our microfilm research room in College Park and train our research room staff to do basic splicing repairs on microfilm when needed. This will help shorten the amount of time that a researcher may have to wait for the film to be repaired in order to access it. NARA continues to look for new ways to best preserve our microfilm in the digital era. We are currently assessing our microfilm holdings to get a better sense of what we have and preservation needs. As we strive to meet goals to digitize our holdings in order to make more of them accessible online digitization has its own set of challenges not so dissimilar to those encountered with microfilm. While the format has changed the concept of making copies for preservation remains the same. Yet we must not lose sight of the need to still retain and preserve the original record whenever possible whether that be paper film or electronic file. We will continue to address these challenges in order to best meet the needs of our customers and preserve our holdings. In closing I'd like to thank my colleagues in preservation programs and conservation at NARA and my colleagues at other institutions who have readily shared their knowledge of film with me over the years especially those listed here. I'd also like to thank the FAIC and the Center for Creative Photography for hosting this symposium and inviting me to speak. Thank you.