On Jan 9, 8:07 pm, Charles Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2009, at 7:30 PM, aussieshepsrock wrote:
Hi Chuck!
> > Topic: Storing Original Prints As Best Option - A Discussion
>
> > Upfront! Well Kept Prints Are By leaps and bounds this is
> > UNEQUIVOCABLY The Best Option!
> > Any and All Atempts To Explain Doing So Is Best Is To Be 'Preaching To
> > The Choir'.
>
> > My Photographic Skils Come Out Of Large Format Cameras And Sporting
> > Darkroom Tans. Give me properly processed 4x5 negatives and fibre
> > based prints or Cibachrome Color Prints and I'll be the Most Happy guy
> > around!!!!!
>
> Which is why you are aware that 'photographic' (chemical/ paper/
> negative) copies have the potential to NOT lose hidden data. [Talking
> about 'granularity' of the image, for B&W, Color is a bit different,
> but still BOTH contain far more data than a 'granularity = 600 or
> 1200 dpi can record.
I am still 'source material' limited here. Your arguments are
exceptionally valid and I don't dispute them in any way.
> Being satisfied with the appearance of a 4x6 at 600 dpi, is fine, IF
> that 600 dpi is derived from 1200 dpi or 2400 dpi original data.
Nice chunks of this collection have solidly visible film grain. I have
almost NO negatives to confirm this, but I suspect 110 and Disc camera
sources for some of these images. Even the ones sourced from 35mm were
either shot on horrifically bad film stock, shot with astonishingly
bad cameras, or printed quite poorly in a high volume situation -
Likely combinations of all three at once! Blury highly visible film
grain scanned at 1200 dpi is legitimately wasting at least half the
pixels. :-) although, I do really like over scans of this type for
doing heavy duty dust, speckle, and scratch removal activity in
photoshop.
> you have the higher resolution data available, you can drop quality
> all you want when you are printing, with no problem. But there is a
> limit as to how much you can enlarge things depending on the dpi
> available to you AT THAT TIME. Once you cut the dpi information,
> that's the NEW limit. Can't magically get those pixels back.
:-) Agreed! - I also face the loss of info from the horrific printing
process these negatives experienced!
> > Having established THAT data point! :-)
>
> > I have to accept the photos in this box for what they mostly are.
> > CHEAP Color Prints from the late Seventies to Early Nineties. By
> > Definition that makes them NON-Archival.
>
> But you can transfer those pics to current 'photo quality' with
> attention to using archival grade materials when appropriate.
I am trying to put together a print process to go alongside the
digital storage arrangement.
It might be the 2nd stage of the my project.
> > The later stuff will take a
> > fair bit longer to self destruct, but self destruct they will. They
> > have also lived a semi-rough life in the environs of my Grand Mothers
> > home. Loved, but not well stored or temperature protected for the most
> > part. The clock is ticking on these pictures.
>
> Fortunately, you shouldn't be having 'Next Week' deadline problems.
:-) Agreed! I just wanted to differentiate these prints versus the
much longer living black and white prints people might have in their
heads. Color prints, especially early high volume stuff are an
entirely different beast. Most of the Treasures in Grandma's
Collection were B&W and THEY ARE GONE.
>
>
> > I would like to have a Non Computer Based Solution to 'Saving' these
> > images and distributing them. I actually have one, but the agreggate
> > cost might be daunting.
>
> > I can take the Digital Files I am making and print them at the local
> > Professional Photo Lab we have in this town. It's actually a semi-
> > major player nationally and draws clients globally. I used to work
> > there 7 or 8 years ago. Great People. For anything beyond snapshots
> > EVERYTHING I need printed goes to them. Period.
>
> > They aren't overwhelmingly expensive, but their Quality is Many Orders
> > Of Magnitude Better than using Walgreens or Walmart or Snapfish or
> > Whatever.
>
> Remember, as good as you say they are, you have already 'reduced' the
> grain/pixel information.
The 'Reduction' of Information Argument you are presenting is Valid.
The response I'm giving is to say that the Grain of The Paper is being
used to reproduce huge film grain in minute detail. A 600 dpi scan of
Film Grain I can sometimes measure with a Ruler!
Were these prints made from ANY camera I've Used Routinely - even the
'Bad' stuff from my early days they would merit MUCH higher resolution
scans. I have a Shot on ordinary Kodak Gold shot with a K-mart Focal
Brand Wide Angle that has incredibly more detail at 8x10 than many of
these 3x5's.
I am not disparaging her Camera's or her Pictures by comparing them to
what I would have gotten from my Zeiss, my Rolleiflex, or my 4x5 from
back in my Film Days. I am factually stating that a Fuji Single Use
35mm Camera would have been a Giant step up in Image Quality! Please
Trust Me On This! I have seen Higher Image Quality come out of a
CELLPHONE!
The combination of Horrific Lenses producing images recorded on Awful
Film printed badly on poor paper with poor lenses in a high speed/low
cost environment ='s the yucky prints I have.
> Maybe the solution to the 'photographic reproduction' problem is as
> simple (yeah right) as locating a willing amateur photo buff, that
> still runs his own dark room, and supplying materials.
That isn't appropriate either. The underlying costs of Home Color
Printing are exorbidant when attempting to produce hundreds and
hundreds of images. If -IF- I was printing single gang-type 8x10's of
every single image I personally had shot on 4 or 5 rolls of Plus-X I
had personally developed I would jump at doing that! In a NEW YORK
MINUTE! I flipping did just that for large sections of my rolls in
place of 'contact' sheets during my college years! Properly exposed
images, properly and consistently developed, made for the joy of
usable 8x10 printing with remarkably even enlarger exposures and
contrast settings. The prints were definitely improvable, but far from
un-usable!
Color? In a Home Darkroom? With Images I hadn't Shot? With -at best-
copy negatives? Not a chance in Hell! I'd Rather Walk a Marathon with
my pinched sciatic nerve and broken foot! In the Snow! Barefoot!
> > It would likely cost 150+ dollars a copy just for each set of prints,
> > but I have worked out a process of using Photoshop to divide an 8x10
> > into 5x8 halves showing each photo and an associated data block
> > showing the available info for each photo.
> > Going this route would buy in to the absolute best printing papers and
> > high quality printing processes to give the longest living color
> > prints I am likely to reasonably encounter.
>
> > The high res scans would 'hold' more absolute photographic info, but
> > the prints would have the benefit of only needing photon's and
> > breathing people to be accessible in the future!
>
> > The good ole Mark One Eyeball. Technology Extrordinaire!
>
> This was what I was getting at with my comments about an 'archival
> system'
The 'Totality' of Scanning the Images and dispersing copies of the
files to 10-20 seperate locations has 'benefits' beyond simply being
physically easier. There is an immediacy to the pain and hurt
inflicted upon our family by the wilful acts of one man in destroying
our family's visual history. I want protection, in depth, and in vast
numbers, against someone or some event doing that again. I want it
NOW. If I had the money, I'd print 10 or 20 sets of prints to go with
each set of scans, but those funds do not exist. I'll settle for what
I can get and work to latter add to what I DO get NOW. :-)
> > The likely availability of light and people 5-10 years from now is
> > statistically pretty hopeful! The certainty of cd's, dvd's, or HD's a
> > Decade out might be more squishy! LOL
>
> The Digital solution has the advantage of being easily searched,
> reproduced, etc.
> The 'photographic method' is closer to an 'Archival solution'.
> Maybe a combination (gets things into two different physical systems
> right off the bat) would answer the overall problem best.
I am hearing ya man. The variables I face are complex and
contradictory!
I want good prints. I'll have good prints at some point. It just might
be a follow on project to the scan one though. OK?
> > The issue for me is that 2 sets of prints and associated appropriate
> > storage materials looks like a 500 dollar minimum buy in.
>
> There go those darn $'s, rearing their ugly heads again!!!!!
Maybe I can get a TARP Check to do this?
Hee Hee!
> Chuck D.
Richard
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
