This was the first time I tried copying an old print with a digital camera.
I've done this years ago with film cameras, even going to the extreme of
using film specifically made for copying, the results then were barely
acceptable to me and certainly not an improvement in the original image.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph McAllister" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner
I've done the same thing, Ken. It takes so long to scan a print or
negative on a scanner, but I've used (for general use - family photos,
etc) setting a print or Polaroid print on the bed of a copy stand; a
tripod and an old glass contact print frame; an old Saunders contact
sheet frame with the plastic torn off and Goo Gone cleaned (whew!). These
options take much less than a minute per setup, shot RAW, minor
corrections in Aperture, and I've been very pleased with the results,
from those Polaroids to 100 year old deckled edge prints.
On May 21, 2009, at 21:38 , Ken Waller wrote:
The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a
few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations.
It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D
compare to those from a scanner.
Joseph McAllister
Pentaxian
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
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.
