Presented is an analysis of what has been done regarding the preservation of alternative publications in microfilm. The alternative press was defined, for the purposes of this study, as "nonstandard, nonestablishment publications." Two projects undertaken to microfilm such publications, one by the Microphoto Division of Bell and Howell and the other by Harvester Press, were contrasted with respect to completeness, quality of microfilm, and ease of access. The Harvester collection, which focuses on British publications, is seen to be the more nearly complete of the two, and it provides more satisfactory external finding aids. However, a subject index to the contents of the publications is not available for either collection, and neither offers individual titles for purchase. A related study found that only 44% of the publications indexed by Alternative Press Centre were microfilmed leading to the conclusion that libraries may be doing their patrons a disservice if they do not subscribe to all the publications available. Their value for historical research; risk of loss through fire, theft, or deterioration; and the limited number of libraries maintaining such collections are the major reasons cited for the publications to be reproduced and preserved on film. A brief commentary on other micropublishers engaged in filming radical publications and recommendations for future action are included. A bibliography and titles available from Bell and Howell and Alternative Press Centre in microfilm are appended. (Author/JPF)