I guess I quickly forgot the critical point that it's a contact print
and only 6cm square. But if the print is in good condition you may be
able to squeeze a 4x4 or 5x5 from the scan.
As to the Kodak duplicating pub they're quite commonly available at low
cost. Check right here:
<http://www.amazon.com/Copying-Duplicating-Black-White-publication/dp/0879853433/ref=sr_1_1/002-1642730-4676842?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183305217&sr=8-1>
Chuck Norcutt
khen lim wrote:
> Hi Chuck
>
> First things first - thank you. That was super-fast of you. My responses in
> between yours...
>
>
> On 01/07/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think I'd first ask why the scanning doesn't seem to be working out.
>
>
> It's difficult to know since my father doesn't have a clue about things like
> what optical resolution the scanner in use was. So I cannot tell. But if HE
> says it's not too good, I'm not going to argue because I'd prefer to think
> that my ability to see quality is better than his.
>
> Even an inexpensive scanner should be able to do the job.
>
>
> Apparently not.
>
> If you scan
>> the image at even 600 dpi you'll have at least twice the resolution of
>> the print.
>
>
> Chuck, the print size is 6x6cm, square 120 format from the Kodak Brownie.
>
> Inexpensive scanners also have fairly low dynamic range but
>> so does a B&W print. I suspect that the scanner is probably capturing
>> what needs to be captured but, as with many digital images, the rest
>> must be left to some creative post-processing.
>
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you.
>
> That said, I think it would be instructive to also use a DSLR and
>> compare the "raw" images. Decide which is best before investing a lot
>> of labor in post-processing. I would use normal copy procedures (lights
>> at 45 degrees on either side and camera perfectly square to the image).
>> I'd take a color image in raw form and do the B&W conversion later in
>> PhotoShop.
>
>
> What's your take on the DSLR's anti-aliasing filter softening the raw image?
> It wouldn't have mattered whether the source capture is in colour or B+W. If
> we get weird DSLRs that do not have anti-aliasing filters and are
> specifically designed for B+W, maybe then shooting in black-and-white will
> make a difference....
>
> One possible problem might be pebbled or grained paper.
>
>
> It's not lustre. It's not matte. It's gloss but paper-based as opposed to
> PE-based paper. We're talking about the Sixties here, Chuck.
>
> The pebbling or
>> grain can really stand out in the copy but, as Ctein points out in his
>> excellent book on restoration, the paper grain can be treated as large
>> diameter digital noise and suppressed with the likes of Noise Ninja or
>> other noise reduction software. If this or other restoration jobs are
>> important to you I would highly recommend reading Ctein's book "Digital
>> Restoration from Start to Finish". An excellent read for image
>> processing technique even if you're not doing restoration. Highly
>> recommended.
>> <
>> http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Restoration-Start-Finish-photographs/dp/0240808142/ref=sr_1_1/002-1642730-4676842?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183296720&sr=8-1
>> ps: If you've never done copy work with a camera before Ctein points
>> out that the old Kodak film era pub "Copying and Duplicating in Black
>> and White and Color" is still an excellent resource. I bought mine on
>> the web for about $2.
>
>
> You lucky dawg...
>
> I think my biggest stumbling block, Chuck, is that the print size is 6x6cm
> as in 2 1/4in square. That's just about contact print size. At THIS size,
> man, it's difficult enough even for my human eyes to see details.....
>
> What I might do is to scan that image and post it on a link...Maybe you can
> have a good gawk at it and then tell me....
>
> Thanks heaps.
>
> K.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>> khen lim wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> My dad has a B+W contact print (6x6cm) but he doesn't have the negative.
>>> He's looking at trying to reproduce it at the highest resolution. This
>> photo
>>> was captured using the Kodak Brownie. He claims to have tried scanning
>> but
>>> it's not too good. If we're going to do a direct reprography, using say
>> the
>>> E-510 (or other DSLR), how do you think we should approach this?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> K/
>>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|