Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Repro question

Subject: Re: [OM] Repro question
From: Garth Wood <garth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:11:08 -0700
At 10:04 PM 2/10/98 +0000, Volkhart Baumgärtner wrote:
>
>Yo y'all,
>
>I'd appreciate some advice on the following problem:
>
>My dad just dug out a couple of old b&w prints. One of them must be from
>around 1915, showing my great-granny (whom I never knew), and my grandma (in
>her mid-teens then) with her brother and sister. This one is about 
>5 3/4 x 4". The other one shows my dad himself with his swimming team and
>must be from around 1945. It is only about 4 x 2 7/8. 
>Now he would like enlarged reproductions of thes two prints.
>
>What film would be best for that kind of work?

I'm partial to XP2 at about ASA 50, myself.  No matter which film you use,
you will never quite reproduce the original tonal range.  (An alternative
would be to scan the print with a 24-bit or better scanner at the highest
optical resolution you can get, and do any manipulation in a software
package such as Photoshop.)

>Also, is there any hope at all of getting acceptable results with my
>equipment? With my OM-10 being away for repair, the available camera bodies
>are an OM-PC, an OM-F, an OM-2, and an OM-2n. As for lenses, I own a 28 f
>2.8, a 50 f1.4, an 85 f2, a 35-70 f3.5-4.5 (all Zuikos), a Vivitar 24 f2.8,
>Vivitar 19 f3.8, and a Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6. I think we can rule out the
>last three right away for the job at hand, as well as the 28 which is just
>too wide. I also have a 12 mm and a 20 mm auto extension ring of unknown
>brand (pretty decent, all-metal quality, though), a T-20 and a real good
>SCA-dedicated Cullman flash (gn 32, metric). 
>Any chance to do the trick with any combination of the above?

Depends.  What's acceptable to you?  I've used both 100s and macros in a
variety of focal lengths with a copy stand and an Oly to do reproductions,
and the results ranged from acceptable to "Wow!", depending on luck.  The
equipment you've got should do reasonably well -- at first blush, I'd use
the 85 f/2.0, any of the camera bodies (as long as you can do some
bracketing) and XP2 film, plus a copy stand (which I notice is conspicuous
from your list by its absence).  I recommend XP2 with your existing setup
simply because you have no macros, and therefore aren't going to be able to
get really, really close to your subject; thus, XP2's amazing resolution at
low ASA values would be a real boon here, since you're going to do some
cropping whether you want to or not.

The copy stand's optional, of course -- you *can* do it with your existing
equipment.  But it sure does help in (a) assuring that your lens' focal
axis is absolutely perpendicular to your subject plane, and (b) minimizing
camera shake.  Nevertheless, I've taken reasonably good photos for copy
purposes in the field.  You should be able to do no less (Hell, if you're
younger than me, you can probably do a damn sight better, especially in the
"camera shake" department...  :-).

For what it's worth.

Garth


############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|    with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
|   listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|    htttp://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz