On Jan 9, 2009, at 10:08 PM, aussieshepsrock wrote:
> > > > 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. Ouch!!! There goes that avenue of attack! > 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've been further into this than I was conscious of. > >> 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. > That could work, more time to gather resources ($), methods, whatever. >>> 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. > The ones that are physically gone, we can only commiserate over, the ones that are physically present, but lousy quality, can be looked at with the eye to eventually trying 'wild ideas' for restoration of detail' (Newer methods of processing, whatever.) >> >> >>> 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. >> The only thing I would question Re: the commercial lab, is whether they are doing things via FILM, or using 'Digital' steps in their processing. People may never notice (to complain about) loss of 'foundational' data from the frames. >> 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! Sometimes it's enough to make one cry with frustration. But I hear you, and understand your problem a bit better. > > 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 I've never been afraid of that end of things. I don't know about TODAY, but in the past '60s & '70s, color was no big thing for the amateur to do themselves. > 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! That's why you need to find the RIGHT amateur. One that likes the challenge of making 'Silk Purses' of frayed 'Sows Ears'. Admittedly, it would be a challenge, but I can remember seeing articles in Photo Mags about miracles of 'restoration'. (Some starting points were only slightly better than 'Dirty Glass'. But enough of this ---- You ARE aware enough to consider such things, and I hope you have been taking my comments in the spirit of my wanting you to not skip past something because you didn't know it could be done. (And I feel that you ARE at that point,) > >>> 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. :-) Yup!! That's the sort of choices that we are all faced with at times. > > >>> 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! If you figure that one out, let me know the details. I've got some wild possibilities that could use funding. Chuck > > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
