Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Long lost face of relative on old print
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave West
Apr 29, 2013, 5:53:57 AM4/29/13
to
Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
possible. Especially since this print is so small.
I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
tripod etc.
Also the person whose lending all this top gear will PhotoShop any pictures
I take. But he doesn't have the time to take photos of these prints, which
I must do myself and don't want to trouble him with it.
As a novice I would be grateful for any advice on how best to do this.
With a shiny surface print am I better using natural light from a window or
set up these photographer's lamps. Also I've been told that shooting in
something called 'raw file format' will give me the most detail.
Also some time ago we got some 'magnifying' filters that go on the front of
a camera. (three filters that screw together, so you can use just one or two
or three depending on how much magnification you want). These are the wrong
diameter for the Nikon, but in the essential quest for as much detail as
possible of a single face on this print, would it be an advantage to tape
these magnifying filters over the front of the Nikon even, if they are not a
proper fit, since I presume the edges can be edited out?
Grateful for any tips on how to best set up the equipment to take these
pictures. Thanks.
surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
possible. Especially since this print is so small.
I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
tripod etc.
Also the person whose lending all this top gear will PhotoShop any pictures
I take. But he doesn't have the time to take photos of these prints, which
I must do myself and don't want to trouble him with it.
As a novice I would be grateful for any advice on how best to do this.
With a shiny surface print am I better using natural light from a window or
set up these photographer's lamps. Also I've been told that shooting in
something called 'raw file format' will give me the most detail.
Also some time ago we got some 'magnifying' filters that go on the front of
a camera. (three filters that screw together, so you can use just one or two
or three depending on how much magnification you want). These are the wrong
diameter for the Nikon, but in the essential quest for as much detail as
possible of a single face on this print, would it be an advantage to tape
these magnifying filters over the front of the Nikon even, if they are not a
proper fit, since I presume the edges can be edited out?
Grateful for any tips on how to best set up the equipment to take these
pictures. Thanks.
Floyd L. Davidson
Apr 29, 2013, 6:07:34 AM4/29/13
to
"Dave West" <2255687587@mail.invalid> wrote:
>Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
>Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
>like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
>possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
>I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
>tripod etc.
That might work, but it is not nearly the best way to
>Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
>Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
>like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
>possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
>I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
>tripod etc.
accomplish this task, in particular given that you are
not experienced at macro photography.
The best, and by far the easiest, way to get a digital
copy of the print is with a high quality scanner.
Something like an Epson V700 or V750, though I'm sure
that others are just as good. But given the importance
of the image, don't settle for just any old average
scanner; make sure you find a high quality top end
scanner. Then use the maximum resolution that it can
operate at.
You can generate a TIFF formatted image file. Then you
can find any number of people who might be willing to
make a try at enhancing the image as best they can.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Savageduck
Apr 29, 2013, 11:23:12 AM4/29/13
to
On 2013-04-29 02:53:57 -0700, "Dave West" <2255687587@mail.invalid> said:
> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
> I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
> tripod etc.
Unless the individual using the DSLR is particularly skilled at
> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
> I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
> tripod etc.
photographic copying, I would suggest a flat bed scanner would be
better to work with. This would insure against the introduction of lens
induced distortions and light reflections.
> Also the person whose lending all this top gear will PhotoShop any pictures
> I take. But he doesn't have the time to take photos of these prints, which
> I must do myself and don't want to trouble him with it.
>
> As a novice I would be grateful for any advice on how best to do this.
>
> With a shiny surface print am I better using natural light from a window or
> set up these photographer's lamps. Also I've been told that shooting in
> something called 'raw file format' will give me the most detail.
the best quality image file to work enhancement adjustments or fixes to
damage. Otherwise, scanning at a high resolution to produce a TIFF file
to make corrections and/or adjustments on.
> Also some time ago we got some 'magnifying' filters that go on the front of
> a camera. (three filters that screw together, so you can use just one or two
> or three depending on how much magnification you want). These are the wrong
> diameter for the Nikon, but in the essential quest for as much detail as
> possible of a single face on this print, would it be an advantage to tape
> these magnifying filters over the front of the Nikon even, if they are not a
> proper fit, since I presume the edges can be edited out?
work needed in Photoshop.
> Grateful for any tips on how to best set up the equipment to take these
> pictures. Thanks.
bad age/water spotting, aging of the toning, and a crease across the
top left corner, all of which were fixed using photoshop.
The original scan (down sized & saved as a jpeg):
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Evans-05w.jpg >
...and the fixed & adjusted version:
< http://db.tt/fC5A3hDD >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Apr 29, 2013, 5:16:18 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:23:12 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2013-04-29 02:53:57 -0700, "Dave West" <2255687587@mail.invalid> said:
>
>> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>>
>> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
>> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
>> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>>
>> I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
>> tripod etc.
>
>Unless the individual using the DSLR is particularly skilled at
>photographic copying, I would suggest a flat bed scanner would be
>better to work with. This would insure against the introduction of lens
>induced distortions and light reflections.
Any scanner, even the scanner in a under-$100 3-in-1 printer, will
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2013-04-29 02:53:57 -0700, "Dave West" <2255687587@mail.invalid> said:
>
>> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>>
>> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
>> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
>> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>>
>> I have been offered the use of some good equipment, Nikon Dslr, lights,
>> tripod etc.
>
>Unless the individual using the DSLR is particularly skilled at
>photographic copying, I would suggest a flat bed scanner would be
>better to work with. This would insure against the introduction of lens
>induced distortions and light reflections.
probably provide better results than photographing a photograph by
someone who is not experienced in this and using a copy stand.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Whiskers
Apr 29, 2013, 6:05:03 PM4/29/13
to
On 2013-04-29, Dave West <2255687587@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
[...]
> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group photograph.
>
> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather we would
> like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail and quality as
> possible. Especially since this print is so small.
High-street photo processing and printing shops often have very good
scanners which can digitise old prints (and slides and negatives); they can
do good enlargements too, within the limitations of the original. Much
easier and more reliable than the long steep learning-curve required to get
tolerable results using an unfamiliar sophisticated camera!
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Coe
Apr 29, 2013, 7:04:09 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:16:18 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:23:12 -0700, Savageduck
Mark this down: For once, Tony, Floyd, the Duck, and I are in absolute
agreement. Copying documents (especially photographic prints) is one of those
cases when ambient light is your enemy, not your friend. Use a scanner.
Bob
wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:23:12 -0700, Savageduck
agreement. Copying documents (especially photographic prints) is one of those
cases when ambient light is your enemy, not your friend. Use a scanner.
Bob
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013, 4:39:55 PM5/2/13
to
Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:16:18 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:16:18 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>: On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:23:12 -0700, Savageduck
>: >Unless the individual using the DSLR is particularly skilled at
>: >photographic copying, I would suggest a flat bed scanner would be
>: >better to work with. This would insure against the introduction of lens
>: >induced distortions and light reflections.
>: Any scanner, even the scanner in a under-$100 3-in-1 printer, will
>: probably provide better results than photographing a photograph by
>: someone who is not experienced in this and using a copy stand.
> Mark this down: For once, Tony, Floyd, the Duck, and I are in absolute
> agreement. Copying documents (especially photographic prints) is one of those
> cases when ambient light is your enemy, not your friend. Use a scanner.
And even I cannot disagree. Darn.
>: >photographic copying, I would suggest a flat bed scanner would be
>: >better to work with. This would insure against the introduction of lens
>: >induced distortions and light reflections.
>: Any scanner, even the scanner in a under-$100 3-in-1 printer, will
>: probably provide better results than photographing a photograph by
>: someone who is not experienced in this and using a copy stand.
> Mark this down: For once, Tony, Floyd, the Duck, and I are in absolute
> agreement. Copying documents (especially photographic prints) is one of those
> cases when ambient light is your enemy, not your friend. Use a scanner.
-Wolfgang
Robert Coe
May 3, 2013, 2:51:03 PM5/3/13
to
Gordon Freeman
May 11, 2013, 5:22:23 PM5/11/13
to
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-04-29, Dave West <2255687587@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group
>> photograph.
>>
>> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather
>> we would like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail
>> and quality as possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
> [...]
>
> High-street photo processing and printing shops often have very good
> scanners which can digitise old prints (and slides and negatives);
> they can do good enlargements too, within the limitations of the
> original.
I had good results with a conventional flatbed scanner scanning an old
> On 2013-04-29, Dave West <2255687587@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Have just received in the land mail post a very small old style shiny
>> surface black and white print of a long passed wedding group
>> photograph.
>>
>> Since this is the only photographic record we have of a grandfather
>> we would like to copy this photo and enlarge it with as much detail
>> and quality as possible. Especially since this print is so small.
>
> [...]
>
> High-street photo processing and printing shops often have very good
> scanners which can digitise old prints (and slides and negatives);
> they can do good enlargements too, within the limitations of the
> original.
35mm contact print at 1200ppi and then printing it at A4 (150ppi), it's
surprising how much detail you can reveal that way, even though in this
case the print was over 70 years old and the negs long lost (or more
probably never in the person's possession).
0 new messages