Microfilm
No. It is still one of the leading records storage media and is the records preservation medium.
No. Not all records are good candidates for microfilming. A good rule of thumb is that if the records have to be retained for more that ten years, it may be cost justifiable to microfilm. In many cases, it’s cheaper to store paper records than to microfilm. If the records are to be kept for a very long time (e.g., twenty or more years) to permanently, however, microfilm should be seriously considered. You also should seriously consider microfilming particularly important or ‘vital’ records for protection against potential disasters such as fire and water damage. In deciding on what and when to microfilm, such variables as the quantity of the records, frequency of additions and/or updates to them, and how often they are referenced are all important to consider before deciding to microfilm. All of these variables are addressed through a
records retention schedule. To ensure that you are making the right decisions about microfilming your records, be sure that they have been scheduled by the Department’s
records management program.
Not necessarily. For voluminous, highly active, limited term records requiring multiple/simultaneous access, scanning is better than microfilming. Scanning, however, is not for long-term preservation, whereas microfilm is a proven preservation medium, with a life span of four to five hundred years if properly processed and stored in a climate-controlled environment. Scanning is more expensive than microfilming. Scanning has many hidden costs, including the time and effort needed to index the scanned documents for retrieval and migration of the scanned images over the inevitable changes in hardware and software for years to come. By contrast, microfilm is not hardware/software dependent, requiring only a light source and magnification for its use.
The legal requirement in the state’s Public Records Act pertains only to those state and local records deemed ‘permanent’ by the Department’s records scheduling program. This ensures that such permanent records are protected at the state’s central archival facility, the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, which is equipped with a climate controlled storage vault. Such climate-controlled storage is necessary for the long life of the microfilm.
A side benefit of storing original negative microfilm in the Archives’ storage vault is vital records protection: If your original paper records and/or office microfilm copies are damaged or destroyed, copies can be made for you to replace them. Keep in mind, however, that while the storage of the original negative microfilm is free of charge, you will be charged for such copies (see below).
No. Removing microfilm from the Archives’ climate-controlled vault for an extended period of time damages the film (which includes promoting the growth of fungus and oxidation of the silver image), thereby reducing its life span. If you require a copy of your microfilm, we will make a copy for you based on our fee schedule.
Yes, provided that the microfilm meets the Department of Archives and History’s standards and written approval has been secured from the Department. According to state law, microfilm is the legal equivalent of the paper original.