Thanks for the comments John.
These were photos taken when I was a kid - I have no idea where the negs
are, so that wasn't an option. It would be interesting to see how my copies
compared with new prints from the negs.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Poirier" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner
HI, Ken
I'm not surpriised that you got good results. I think proper use of a
digital SLR is a very cost-effective way of reproducing old photographic
prints for all but the most critical applications. I've often done it
myself with materials too large for a scanner.
However, speaking as someone with 20 years of professional experience
working with a collection of half a million archival photographs, I must
point out that there is no substitute for an original negative or slide in
terms of potential image quality, whether as a darkroom print or as a
scan. In particular, with negatives the quality difference can be
enormous. Achieving that quality requires more technical skills than
copying a print but the potential is most certainly there. ( That's not a
criticism of you, Ken. I really admire your work. But I am a seriously
experienced geek in this area.)
My main message is: Don't get rid of your old negatives just because you
think you can do better copying priints with a digital SLR. Copying
prints with a camera is OK if you don't have the means to work with film,
or all you have for an original is a print, but if the pictures are
important hang on to those little bits of film. They carry a lot more
information in terms of detail, tonality and colour than prints.
Now I'll go back to lurking..
John Poirier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Waller" <[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:48 PM
Subject: K20D as Scanner
I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I
didn't have the negs for.
I don't have a flat bed scanner & decided to shoot them with my K20D & my
200mm f4.0 ED Macro.
I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image
plane, using available light & being mindful to eliminate glare off the
originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small
amount of unsharp mask) & printed them (slightly larger than the original
image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer.
The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results
came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I
seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close
to the digitally produced images.
FYI
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
