Error in Microfilm Digitization
The image in this link was only partially digitized, most likelly due a scanning error <https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-6S9V-DD?i=18&cc=2177299&cat=42727>
It's image 242 in film 004000285.
What's the correct way to report this and ask for the image to be rescanned?
Best Answer
-
Contrary to my post of March 6, 2024, I have just seen that you can report a scanning error
Frequently Asked Questions
What if the digital image is blurry, has cut text, or missing slides?
Send an email to fhl-slc-filmrequests@churchofjesuschrist.org explaining the issue(s) and a request will be sent to have the physical master copy at the FamilySearch Archives checked and re-scanned, if applicable.
2
Answers
-
No need - unless I'm missing something. The thin strip of the image labelled 242 (image 19 of 110) is simply the very far right of image 241, duplicating what is already seen on the previous image 18 of 110. Enough patches can be seen to convince me of that. Just don't ask me how it ended up like that!
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 Well-spotted. Possibly an automated camera/scanner working on the average/nominal size of images?
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 indeed, the thin strip in image 19/110 is the far right edge of image 18/110, but the problem remains. Image 18/110 shows book page 17, while image 20/110 shows book page 19. That thin strip was digitized in place of book page 18.
0 -
The catalog entry for this film is https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/42727 which shows that it was originally filmed in 1977.
I do not think there is any chance of getting this re-scanned (I am not connected with FamilySearch)
2 -
Ah - you are correct. I was correct but missed the other half of the story.
0 -
That's what I was looking for. Thank you so much!
0 -
The KA referenced by Maureen is new and reflects changes implemented as many microfilms are being moved off-site and others moved to a new location within the FHL. There's been quite a bit of social media chatter on the topic.
1
