232
232 College & Research Libraries May 1998
New Roles for Special Collections on
the Network
Peter S. Graham
There will be no special collections on the network in the traditional sense
because electronic information is not maintained in artifacts. Special
collections have existed to support preservation of the human record as
instanced in original documents or in specific documents of importance.
Electronic documents, however, do not depend on their physical me
dium for their importance, nor does their medium provide evidence that
assists in better understanding their texts. Special collections will con
tinue in importance because of the continuing importance of artifactual
documents. Special collections librarians may have new and distinctive
roles in the electronic environment, particularly with respect to intellec
tual property and in the merging of special and general digital collec
tions.
o begin with, the simple and
obvious truth is that there will
be no special collections on the
network because artifacts will
not exist on the network. Special collec
tions, after all, are collections of artifacts,
whereas the network and its nodes are
repositories of volatile electronic informa
tion. However, special collections of
books and manuscripts still will be rep
resented on the net. In the first place, there
will be surrogates of their holdings: Digi
tizing projects now are an activity of
many rare book and manuscript collec
tions, large and small; and, more impor
tant, the skills of rare book librarians and
curators will be as essential on the net
work as they always have been. In fact,
the network offers an opportunity to
make more evident for the main collec
tions the substantial intellectual contribu
tion of special collections librarians.
Artifacts (once called books1) come
under the classical definition of mass be
cause they have weight and occupy space;
information on the net does not. As artifacts,
objects in special collections are of interest
because they either contain information in
scribed on them or present information in
themselves (whether associatively, through
provenance, or inherently, perhaps in the way
a handpress book has been printed and as
sembled). Artifacts contain information, in
cluding texts and graphics (once called pic
tures). On the network, users (once called
readers) directly manipulate information. The
foundation of a collection is information,
whether artifactual or electronic. The way
a collection is managed, and even de
fined, depends on the difference.
The Value of Books As Artifacts
Artifacts in libraries can have any of at
least three values: They provide informa-
Peter S. Graham is Associate University Librarian at Rutgers University Libraries; e-mail:
psgraham@rci.rutgers.edu.
232
mailto:psgraham@rci.rutgers.edu
Special Collections on the Network 233
tion about their texts; they provide infor
mation about publishing, reading, owner
ship, and all that we call the history of the
book; or they are appealing esthetically.
The esthetic quality is easiest to de
scribe and for present purposes may be
accounted for most easily. Occasionally,
a book is noted for its esthetic quality,
though most often the appearance of
books, particularly older ones, is routine
if not unsightly to anyone not predis
posed to appreciate them. The range of
esthetic values can be considerable. Bind
ings always have had appeal, from early
books studded with precious stones to
The foundation of a collection is
information, whether artifactual or
electronic.
contemporary hand-tooled leather. Some
books are a pleasure to hold and read,
such as Aldine octavos, Modern Library
and postwar Knopf books, or books from
the Spiral Press. Others are intended to
offer visual pleasure but are in fact diffi
cult to handle as books, such as oblongs
designed by contrarians and most coffee-
table books, which are too heavy to hold
comfortably. The books most celebrated
as beautiful are typically those that add
extraordinary design to important textual
content, such as the Book of Kells, the
Arion Moby-Dick, and Bruce Rogers’s lec
tern Bible. In all these cases, it can be seen
that there is no obvious analogy to net-
worked texts. Although workstation
screens are becoming more sophisticated,
they still cannot present information as
attractively as a finely made book. No
amount of elegance in the construction of
laptops or communication protocols will
carry weight with those attending to the
esthetic experience of reading.
But the primary value of books as arti
facts is the way in which they provide
information about their texts, both explic
itly and implicitly. Readers come to the
library to find information in books and,
less often (though importantly), to study
the book as object to gain further infor
mation about the text or about history
more broadly considered. Thus, they use
books in their most important artifactual
function: as artifacts, whether tablets,
manuscripts, or printed books, the mate
riality transmits the text.
Books embody text. In the interval be
tween the oral tradition and the electronic
age, the artifact is the medium of textual
transmission. Inevitably, the medium also
forms our sense of how the text is trans
mitted.2 Roger Chartier, D. F. McKenzie,
and Robert Darnton have taught us how
size, shape, type face, and portability af
fect our understanding of the text.3 Thus,
the artifacts, beyond the texts, provide in
formation on the history of the book as a
socially created and socially consumed
object. This comprises evidence about
publishing, printing, binding, and other
bookmaking crafts and economic activi
ties, and thus about both authorship and
the social organization of work. The
physical design and construction of the
book provides evidence as to the way
readers were intended to perceive it. Of
ten, too, individual books themselves will
have a history and become evidence of
the transmission of ideas: This book was
made in this place at this time, has this
reader’s name in it, has these marks in it,
and was found in this place at this later
time.4
The use of artifactual evidence for the
history of the book, except for practitio
ners and enthusiasts, is of relatively little
interest to most readers. Yet, often the
structural and physical evidence that an
object supplies is essential for full textual
understanding: The typography, page
and sheet layout, collation, binding, and
all the other aspects of printing history
that can be inferred from the object itself
all have informed our understanding of
the text it carries. The Anglo-American
bibliographic tradition has long demon
strated successes in showing how the
structure of the book can inform our
234 College & Research Libraries May 1998
understanding of the text itself.5 The
history of the book as a study of social
and intellectual history has been similarly
informed by examination of typesetting
and the sequence of printing, paper con
struction, paper sources compared to lo
cation of printers, format of book in rela
tion to text, and the like.
There is, therefore, nothing “spe-
cial” about an electronic collection.
There are no artifacts to provide
added value to the substantive
information.
The artifactual evidence has been em
phasized here to point out the continu
ing importance and informational basis
of library collections of objects—and cer
tainly of special collections. The contrast
with the electronic environment is strik
ing. Because there will be no artifacts on
the network—by definition, so to speak—
there arises no physical evidentiary infor
mation to assist in the study of the texts
themselves or to provide a history of their
transmission. Information exists on the
network as recorded bits of information
collected as a digital object. It is easily
copied. It also is easily modified. The
great asset of electronic information is
also its great liability.
Electronic Collections Are Not
Special
There is, therefore, nothing “special”
about an electronic collection. There are
no artifacts to provide added value to the
substantive information. There is no con
cept of rarity because any digital object
may be quickly copied any number of
times. There is no concept of origin, in the
sense of one document being the more
authoritative source for another. One
copy is just as good as any other identi
cal copy, or as the original. For example,
the copy of a manuscript on floppy disk
(assuming one does not change it) is as
good as the hard-disk copy; there is no
priority. There is no need for protection
against use: Use will not damage an elec
tronic work. And it is important to recog
nize that there is no difference between
important materials and less important
materials in any of these respects. There
are no special collections on the network.
Concepts of preservation and protec
tion still exist.6 They exist, however, in
new terms for digital objects. In the short
term, the medium the object resides on
still needs to be protected and preserved
(medium preservation). In the longer
term, the digital object needs to be pre
served against inevitable advances in
technology, both hardware and software
(technology preservation). And at all
times in the electronic environment, the
integrity or authenticity of the object
needs to be guaranteed for the user to
have assurance that the information is
what it is expected to be (intellectual pres
ervation).7
The computing term for the long-last
ing quality of a digital object is persistence.
In most cases, the decision of a library to
provide access to an object—particularly,
if it maintains a copy locally or provides
full cataloging for it—is a decision that
recognizes the desirability of persistence.
In most cases, for electronic objects it will
be a decision in favor of persistence be
cause the decision to provide access will,
in future, be necessarily linked to the de
cision to preserve the information.
Information “out there on the net” is
not persistent until some institution as
sumes responsibility for its persistence,
just as printed materials in the past have
had no guarantee of survival until con
sciously acquired and preserved. The in
stitution best prepared to take this respon
sibility remains the library. Sometimes it
is loosely asserted that libraries will have
a lesser role in the future because infor
mation will be available to everyone on
the network. The fact remains that for
information to be available for any mean
ingful length of time, someone has to se
lect it and take responsibility for it, which
Special Collections on the Network 235
has been—and remains—the role of the
library. Libraries continue in the para
digm learned in library school of acquir
ing (or linking to) information, organiz
ing it, making it available, and preserv
ing it.
Until now, the decision to provide ac
cess has been separate from the decision
to preserve because, in fact, books can
wait quite a while on the shelf before the
preservation decision has to be faced.
With digital objects, the decision must be
faced from the moment of choice because
digital information is volatile. From the
beginning, therefore, electronic collection
development decisions are decisions
about the desirability (or otherwise) of
persistence, or permanence.8
From the beginning, therefore,
electronic collection development
decisions are decisions about the
desirability (or otherwise) of
persistence, or permanence.
In the electronic environment, the de
cision to provide long-term access will
become analogous to the decision to ac
quire, and it will mean making a commit
ment to long-term preservation. It should
be noted that in this context there is no
difference between what once might have
been considered special collections objects
and other more ephemeral items, whether
temporary Web pages, e-journal articles,
“texts” of authors writing in electronic
form (perhaps even working texts from
disks), or page images of decaying Dead
Sea Scroll fragments that will become the
primary record.
Special Collections on the Network
The role of special collections depart
ments on the network is not yet fully clear,
but some generalizations may be made.
First and foremost, special collections
departments will continue in their role of
being the locus for the important artifact.
Second, they will have an important role
in placing digitized images of artifacts on
the network.9 Finally, they will have no
distinctive electronic role within other
wise electronic libraries.
The special collections department will
continue to be the part of the library that
maintains and provides important arti
facts of the human record. Existing col
lections can be expected to grow indefi
nitely simply by acquiring necessary and
desirable materials from the preelectronic
age. And despite some predictions, writ
ing and printing of importance are going
to be take place well beyond our lifetimes.
Such activities will provide materials for
traditional special collections oversight
for some time to come. All these materi
als will need to be maintained and pre
served for the indefinite future just as we
always have supposed.
Placing digitized materials on the net
work already has become a requirement
for present special collections depart
ments. Rare book departments and trea
sure collections always have played a role
in enhancing the prestige of their institu
tions. Many university administrators
(and some librarians) already have seized
on the public relations potential of plac
ing digitized versions of attractive hold
ings on the network; it appears that some
think that digitization represents all there
is about electronic libraries. Too often,
insufficient thought has been given to the
infrastructure requirements of digitizing
selected parts of collections, including
costs, personnel, systems, and preserva
tion; but this has not stopped the recent
boomlet in digitizing projects character
ized by scattered focus and varying stan
dards. Still, they have had the advantage
of helping train a number of library staff
in the requirements of digitization and
storage, including the niceties of resolu
tion, compression ratios, image formats,
and disk space.10
In the long run, when consistently or
ganized and funded, digitizing projects
will prove of real value for libraries and
their users—and for many materials.
http:space.10
236 College & Research Libraries May 1998
Access to their content will be im
proved while the materials themselves
will be preserved. Rather as an exhibit lets
patrons see an illuminated manuscript or
Pound’s marked-up manuscript of Eliot’s
The Waste Land, so digitized images can be
placed online as a virtual exhibit; and they
can be left online more or less indefinitely,
an advantage over most artifactual exhib
its. Accessibility of individual items can be
improved for both pleasure and research,
thus reducing the wear and tear on items
that otherwise might be too popular to al
low public handling. Thus, network sur
rogates can enhance the preservation of
artifacts by allowing their study without
actual physical handling. For some objects,
the stress of digitizing will have to be bal
anced against the stress of handling, but
for many objects the balance will be clear.
In some instances, the digitizing actually
may improve access, as in the case, for ex
ample, of the Beowulf manuscripts where
digitizing using special lighting actually
has made some parts of the text more
readable than through handling the ob
ject itself.11
Unnecessary travel can be minimized
if some part of scholars’ needs can be sat
isfied by use of a well-digitized surrogate
on the network. In other cases, the avail
ability of a digitized collection can make
a scholar’s travel more efficient by allow
ing him or her to verify the presence of a
document and to identify particular docu
ments of interest before arrival at the ac
tual site. Comparison of documents at
geographically separated sites will be
made much easier.
If digitizing is accompanied by other
forms of editing, new forms of study will
become possible. For example, formal
markup (e.g., the Text Encoding Initiative
[TEI], a form of the Standard Generalized
Markup Language [SGML])12 will allow
computer manipulation of texts and test
ing of hypotheses in ways not possible in
a precomputer environment.
All these digitized uses raise again the
question, not to be answered here, of who
the constituency for the rare book library
is—members of the local institution or the
scholarly community at large. For librar
ies with important special collections de
partments, there always have been the
tensions between local needs and local
funding on the one hand, and national
prestige and extramural users on the
other. The network will only heighten
these tensions.
Special collections departments no
longer will collect distinct kinds of infor
mation within the digital research library.
As described above, there is no distinc
tive activity for a special collections de
partment in the selection, organization,
use, or preservation of digital informa
tion. The same activities will take place
for the identification and long-term main
tenance of a digital textbook as would
take place for preservation of a human
genome database or of a hypertext novel
by Robert Coover.
Thus, network surrogates can
enhance the preservation of artifacts
by allowing their study without
actual physical handling.
Thus, one implication is that, to some
extent, existing special collections depart
ments may become museums of the book,
not of course in the debased sense of mau
solea but, rather, as places where objects
are studied rather than texts. Such a role
would be mitigated partially by digitiza
tion activities to make textual collections
more widely available. Special collec
tions, in fact, would then become a bridge
backward in time—a “legacy system,” in
computer jargon—as they continue to
fulfill their role as a repository of origi
nal documents of the human record.
The Research Library As a Special
Collection
Alternatively, of course—and a preferable
way of seeing our future—it could be said
that the entire research library will become
http:itself.11
Special Collections on the Network 237
a special collection, preserving the elec
tronic human record for use into the in
definite future. (Rare book librarians
might call this approach: “If you can’t beat
‘em, join ‘em.”) In this view, there are
some interesting implications for special
collections staffing.
The historical curatorial skills will
remain important in research
libraries.
The considerations involved in select
ing important originary digital works will
be the only distinction between what now
are called special collections curators and
research library bibliographers. After the
object is selected, whether it is the elec
tronic working papers of a Nobel prize
winner or the next electronic novel by
Danielle Steele, the library activities of
cataloging, authentication, preservation,
and presentation will be the same.
The distinctive characteristic for the
digital curator of special collections may
be a special understanding of intellectual
property and of how copyright will color
the passing of ownership or license from
a private party to the library. What now
is thought of as normal or trade materi
als will have their electronic analogy in
the routine acquisition of digital objects
through standard purchase, lease, or li
cense agreements. The digital curator, on
the other hand, will sniff out particular
digital objects of importance and indi
vidually negotiate rights to them with
their owner. Electronic copyright law may
become an important hiring qualification
in special collections.
So far, the question has been begged
of what is an “important” digital work.
In the artifactual environment, the con
cept often is clear, though sometimes
c o n t r o ve r s i a l . T h e c r i t e r i a o f t e n
change. The hard-copy concept of im
portance is affected by changing views
of culture, for example, as in the rise
of gender studies or of popular culture
and ephemera. Still, importance is
given a concrete foundation by artifac
tual matters such as edition, printing
state, binding, age, and demonstrable
provenance. Thus, in a broad sense, we
know an important artifactual work when
we see one, which is what allows the an
tiquarian book trade to thrive.
But what is an important digital work?
The hypothesis so far has been that ev
erything about research library activities
involving digital works is the same ex
cept for the selection process. And the
selection process is different only for “im
portant” works. Perhaps what will be
thought of as “important” digital works
will be those desirable digital objects for
which the copyright issues are trouble
some. They will not be any rarer than
anything else, they will not be any more
fragile, they will not be any more esthetic,
and they will not provide any material
supporting evidence for the substance of
their information. It may be the concept
of scarcity—that is, the difficulty of ac
quiring rights—that provides the sense of
importance or of value.
Saying that a digital work is important
because it invokes the specialized skill of
a digital copyright curator is not yet a
very crisp or satisfactory working defini
tion. The uncertainty of this definition
also may be heuristically helpful in un
derstanding why special collections as
such will not really exist on the Internet.
However, we may be confident that
there will continue to be a role for special
collections in the networked environ
ment. The historical curatorial skills will
remain important in research libraries.
These are the skills for understanding
what is important in the literature, for
knowing who the important players are,
for asserting what a given library should
take responsibility for, and for negotiat
ing with private parties.
In his 1990 Malkin lecture, Terry
Belanger pessimistically described the
role of special collections as leading the
march to the dumpster as research library
238 College & Research Libraries May 1998
shelves get fuller.13 Instead, the role of spe
cial collections should be to lead the
march to the network. In rejoining their
main library colleagues, special collec
tions librarians will be leading themselves
back into the mainstream of the research
library. This will be of enormous benefit
to their colleagues, to themselves, and to
library patrons now and in the future.
The author appreciates the opportu
nity he had to try out these ideas at the
Rare Book School of the University of
Virginia in 1995. He also is grateful for
thoughtful readings by Daniel Traister
of the University of Pennsylvania and
Jackie Dooley of the University of Cali-
fornia-Irvine, but they should not be held
responsible for these views.
Notes
1. This article refers to “books” as shorthand for the many different kinds of artifactual
objects in libraries and special collections, including manuscripts, broadsides, pamphlets, jour
nals, sheet music, recordings, photographs, and the like. The general point, mutatis mutandis,
holds for all of them.
2. See the dust jackets in any contemporary bookstore. For the scene 200 years ago, see
George Crabbe (1754–1832), “The Library” (1808):
...Lo! all in silence, all in order stand,
And mighty folios first, a lordly band;
Then quartos their well-ordered ranks maintain,
And light octaves fill a spacious plain.
See yonder, ranged in more frequented rows,
A humbler band of duodecimos.
3. For example, see D. F. McKenzie on the shift in Congreve editions from quarto to octavo.
The new format and the addition of stage directions, italic, and decorations signaled a change in
how author and publisher intended the work to be taken by its audience, and thus the shift in
sensibility now referred to as the shift from Restoration to Georgian; “Typography and Mean
ing: The Case of William Congreve,” in Buch und Buchhandel in Europa im achtzehnten Jahrhundert,
eds. Giles Barber and Bernhard Fabian (Hamburg, 1981), 81–125. McKenzie’s work is cited in
Robert Darnton, The Kiss of Lamourette (New York: W. W. Norton, 1990), 132 and 184.
4. For examples, see Roger Chartier, The Order of Books (Stanford, Calif.: University Pr., 1994),
and Anthony Grafton, “Is the History of Reading a Marginal Enterprise? Guillaume Budé and
His Books,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 91 (June 1997): 39–57. See especially
Roger Stoddard, ed., Marks in Books, Illustrated and Explained (Cambridge: Houghton Library,
1984), and the December, 1997, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America devoted to the 1997
Marks in Books Conference of the BSA. For a more general introduction, see Robert Darnton,
“What Is the History of the Book?” in The Kiss of Lamourette (New York: W. W. Norton, 1990).
5. The classic example is Charlton Hinman’s The Printing and Proof-reading of the First Folio of
Shakespeare, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Pr., 1963). A briefer version is his introduction to the
Norton Facsimile, The First Folio of Shakespeare (New York: Norton, 1968). For more on analytic
and descriptive bibliography in this tradition, see the works of G. Thomas Tanselle, for example,
in almost any of the annual volumes of the Papers of the Bibliographical Society of the Univer
sity of Virginia.
6. Preserving Digital Information: Final Report and Recommendations (Washington, D.C.: Com
mission on Preservation and Access/Research Libraries Group, 1996). Available in print and on
the Web at: .
7. “In this new world, preservation means copying, not physical preservation.” Michael
Lesk, Preservation of New Technology: A Report of the Technology Assessment Advisory Committee to
the Commission on Preservation and Access (Washington, D.C.: Commission on Preservation and
Access, 1992), 13; also at: . See also
Clifford A. Lynch, “The Integrity of Digital Information: Mechanics and Definitional Issues,”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1994): 737–44; Peter S. Graham, Intellec
tual Preservation: Electronic Preservation of the Third Kind (Washington, D.C.: Commission on Pres
ervation and Access, 1994); also at: .
8. Patricia M. Battin noted the need for preservation decisions at digital creation in the 1992-93
Annual Report of the Commission on Preservation and Access, p. 3. The archiving community
has emphasized “life-cycle” treatment of records to assure preservation, and this approach is
http:fuller.13
Special Collections on the Network 239
now appearing in digital archiving discussions; see e.g. Neil Beagrie and Daniel Greenstein’s
upcoming Digital Collections: Developing a Strategic Policy Framework for the Creation and Preserva
tion of Digital Resources (London: Arts and Humanities Date Service, draft of March 9, 1998).
9. Abby Smith has summarized the value of the acces and preservation role in “Special
Collections Stake Their Claim in the Electronic Age,” CLIR Issues, (March/April 1998): 1.
10. For an outstanding introduction to these topics, see Anne R. Kenney and Stephen
Chapman, Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Library, 1996).
Proposal responses by many libraries to the Ameritech/LC grant sponsorship are examples of
what is noted in this paragraph. In contrast, see the recent statement by the Society of American
Archivists, “The mere potential for increased access to a digitized collection does not add value
to an underutilized collection. It is a rare collection of digital files indeed that can justify the cost
of a comprehensive migration strategy without factoring in the larger intellectual context of
related digital files stored elsewhere and their combined uses for research and scholarship,”
Statement on the Preservation of Digitized Reproductions ( June 9, 1997), .
11. Kevin Kiernan, “Digital Preservation, Restoration, and Dissemination of Medieval Manu
scripts,” (1993), , and “The Electronic Beowulf”
(The British Library, 1995), .
12. See the pilot project developed by Wendell Piez and others at the Center for Electronic
Texts in the Humanities (CETH) of Rutgers and Princeton, “The William Elliot Griffis Collection
Electronic Access Project,” (1996), at . The project uses SGML DTD’s both for Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and
the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI).
13. Terry Belanger, The Future of Rare Book Libraries (Columbia University School of Library
Service, Book Arts Press: 1991 Malkin Lecture; text available from Dec. 16, 1991, archive of ExLibris,
message from: terry@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu, subject: Malkin Lecture).
mailto:terry@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
www.archivists.org/governance/resolutions/digitize.html
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /All
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Tags
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.0000
/ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams false
/MaxSubsetPct 1
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness false
/PreserveHalftoneInfo true
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages false
/ColorImageMinResolution 151
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 300
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 151
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 600
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.16667
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile ()
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description <<
/ENU (IPC Print Services, Inc. Please use these settings with InDesign CS4 \(6.x\). These settings should work well for every type of job; B/W, Color or Spot Color. Contact Pre-press Helpdesk at prepress_helpdesk@ipcprintservices.com if you have questions or need customized settings.)
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<<
/AsReaderSpreads false
/CropImagesToFrames true
/ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue
/FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false
/IncludeGuidesGrids false
/IncludeNonPrinting false
/IncludeSlug false
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(InDesign)
(4.0)
]
/OmitPlacedBitmaps false
/OmitPlacedEPS false
/OmitPlacedPDF false
/SimulateOverprint /Legacy
>>
<<
/AddBleedMarks true
/AddColorBars false
/AddCropMarks true
/AddPageInfo true
/AddRegMarks false
/BleedOffset [
9
9
9
9
]
/ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK
/DestinationProfileName (U.S. Web Coated \(SWOP\) v2)
/DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/Downsample16BitImages true
/FlattenerPreset <<
/ClipComplexRegions true
/ConvertStrokesToOutlines true
/ConvertTextToOutlines true
/GradientResolution 300
/LineArtTextResolution 1200
/PresetName ([High Resolution])
/PresetSelector /HighResolution
/RasterVectorBalance 1
>>
/FormElements false
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.250000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(3.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
<<
/AllowImageBreaks true
/AllowTableBreaks true
/ExpandPage false
/HonorBaseURL true
/HonorRolloverEffect false
/IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false
/IncludeHeaderFooter false
/MarginOffset [
0
0
0
0
]
/MetadataAuthor ()
/MetadataKeywords ()
/MetadataSubject ()
/MetadataTitle ()
/MetricPageSize [
0
0
]
/MetricUnit /inch
/MobileCompatible 0
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(GoLive)
(8.0)
]
/OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false
/PageOrientation /Portrait
/RemoveBackground false
/ShrinkContent true
/TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors
/UseEmbeddedProfiles false
/UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true
>>
]
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice