The History, Philosophy, and Newspaper Library (HPNL) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is home to a large collection of both newspapers and microfilm. While both are certainly collections that are still used regularly, there are many people of all generations who have never come into contact with a microfilm reel or scanner before coming here. And really, why would they have too? Everything is accessible on the internet at this point right?
Well not exactly.
In the past, microfilm was used as a form of preservation for more fragile objects like old books and newspapers that were printed on quickly degrading paper. There was a huge boom in the microfilming industry in the 50s and 60s when archivists and librarians became a little bit obsessed with increasing the longevity of their collections and saving space. During this process, however, they threw out many of the original copies of items that were filmed which made them only accessible on microfilm. At the time this probably seemed like a great idea (saving space and all that), but as we have transitioned into the digital age, physical-based media are seeing less and less use.
That dip in use does not reflect microfilm’s overall usefulness, however. People come into our library daily to view microfilm for a variety of reasons. But if these resources are so useful, why are they being used less and less? I can think of a few reasons:
One of the biggest issues that I very briefly mentioned is the lack of increasing scarcity of microfilm scanners and knowledge surrounding their use. The only way you can view microfilm is through a specialized scanner which will shine a backlight through it and magnify the image. Most people who come in to view microfilm for the first time need some brief instruction on how to use this scanner in order to get started. This can make coming in to view microfilm intimidating to a lot of patrons.
“Then why not just put everything onto the internet? It’s clearly possible since I can find plenty of old newspapers online.” I hear you saying. And to that I say: If only it were that easy.
Digitization (creating a digital version accessible online) is undeniably an important tool to providing access to microfilm in the modern world. However, there are a few roadblocks that some publications cannot make it past to be considered for digitization. Digitization is often expensive and can take a long time to complete. In the case of microfilmed newspapers, an employee has to go through the microfilm by hand and note any errors (duplications, cut off words, pages out of order, etc.) they come across before the film can be sent off to be converted into a digital version. Depending on the length of film and issues it has, this process can take any multitude of months to complete. And that doesn’t even begin to cover that actual creation of a digital artifact. Considering all of the time and resources that need to be put into digitization, lesser-known publications that are still extremely valuable resources are less likely to be digitized than something huge and well known like the New York Times.
Another issue that has likely contributed to the decline in use of microfilm is the lack of readily available information on what it contains.
When you look up a newspaper or microfilm reel in library catalogs, you usually don’t get much beyond the publisher, title, the date range, and available formats. Even digitized versions of newspapers may separate out different sections of newspapers and specify their dates, but still do not include some essential information like who and what is mentioned. So if, for instance, you are looking for the specific mention of a celebrity or loved one, you may find yourself sifting through hundreds of images with no luck and no way of knowing if the next reel will yield results. It can, understandably, become frustrating
Now, I realize all of that may seem very negative and I want to make it clear that the reason I bring these issues up is not to scare people away from using microfilm. Quite the opposite, actually. This difficulty in making things digital is a reality that many established physical collections face in the modern age. Considering the amount of time it would take to create detailed, searchable records for everything they have, it just isn’t a realistic goal to set.
As a student researcher of the 2020s myself, I understand the appeal of using easy to search books and articles online. However, it is important to understand that there are hundreds if not thousands of resources that are not available online that may hold the key to some amazing research. Newspapers especially can be extremely valuable primary sources when it comes to historical research. While it may seem like it is “going out of style,” there are still plenty of ways that researchers of all varieties can apply microfilmed resources in their work and there are still places like HPNL that allow easy access to them. They may take a bit more time and effort, but they can lead to some interesting information you may not have found elsewhere.
So, if you have access to a microfilm collection and scanner, I would strongly encourage you to at least take a swing at using it for your next project. And if you find yourself wanting to take me up on that encouragement, the assistants and staff of HPNL will always be happy to help!