Digital BW, The Print

I want to digitize my archive of monochrome silver prints (for ink jet
printing, so not too off topic). First thought is to shoot them on a
copy stand with a DSLR. All were originally shot on 35 mm. film. Do
you folks think an 8MP Canon is adequate to make prints comparble in
detail to the originals, or should I rent a 12MP body, or what?
Scanner for the smaller ones? Thanks for any advice.

For the best results I would scan the original negatives, then adjust and
print through photoshop.
Several years ago, I did the same thing that you¹re suggesting, that is scan
original b&w prints on a flatbed scanner to digitize them for printing.
While the results looked very good, I later purchased a good scanner, Nikon
Coolscan 9000, and scanned the negs, then printed and the results are
better.  I guess it¹s all a question of what quality you¹re after.
David Aschkenas

-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lenzzman44" 
<lenzzman44@...> wrote:
>
> I want to digitize my archive of monochrome silver prints (for ink jet
> printing, so not too off topic). First thought is to shoot them on a
> copy stand with a DSLR. All were originally shot on 35 mm. film. Do
> you folks think an 8MP Canon is adequate to make prints comparble in
> detail to the originals, or should I rent a 12MP body, or what?
> Scanner for the smaller ones? Thanks for any advice.
>

I never digitized silver prints, but I on a few occaisions I made 
reproductions of some of my paintings and drawings. The paintings I had 
to do with a camera, the drawings I did with a scanner. I preferred the 
latter, notwithstanding the drawings were much bigger than the scanner. 
No comprise in resolution, very well controlled illumination. I scanned 
them in 6-8 parts and stitched them together. But if that's suitable 
for you depends to a large extent how many you have to do. I did 
something like 20 drawings and that took me 2 or 3 evenings.

Success!

In my experience, I think you will find an 8 Mp camera perfectly 
adequate for copying original prints.
You just need to be sure to light the original properly.
I use 2 studio flashes at 45 degrees each side, fitted with polarisers 
(both oriented the same) and a polariser on the lens oriented so that my 
meter, placed over the print, shows no specular reflection.
I add 1+2/3 stop  to my meter reading for a good exposure.
Geoff


lenzzman44 wrote:

>
> I want to digitize my archive of monochrome silver prints (for ink jet
> printing, so not too off topic). First thought is to shoot them on a
> copy stand with a DSLR. All were originally shot on 35 mm. film. Do
> you folks think an 8MP Canon is adequate to make prints comparble in
> detail to the originals, or should I rent a 12MP body, or what?
> Scanner for the smaller ones? Thanks for any advice.
>

Kind of depends on how large of prints you want to make? I would agree
scanning the negs would be better, but then you would spend a lot of
time making them look like your existing prints.

8MP camera would probably do fine for 11x14 prints, maybe even
slightly larger.

You could shoot in two parts and stitch the two together for larger
file sizes. PTGui does a great job on stitching--http://www.ptgui.com/

Shoot the files in RAW, and convert.

Also, be aware than any surface scratches on the print will likely
show, so spend some time fixing all those defects.

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lenzzman44"
<lenzzman44@...> wrote:

>
> I want to digitize my archive of monochrome silver prints (for ink jet
> printing, so not too off topic). First thought is to shoot them on a
> copy stand with a DSLR. All were originally shot on 35 mm. film. Do
> you folks think an 8MP Canon is adequate to make prints comparble in
> detail to the originals, or should I rent a 12MP body, or what?
> Scanner for the smaller ones? Thanks for any advice.
>

Ralph Gibson and Annie Liebowitz both scan prints rather than negs - I guess the quality of your print and the quality of the scanner are major considerations. They would both have the best equipment available no doubt, which would make a difference.

But I've got best results with a film scanner, like the other correspondents.

Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, 
   and I don't know why I'll do it again."
   --Bart Simpson

Some of my wet prints can't be easily repeated or have aquired a maturity.
Those go to the scanner.

gar

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Richard Smallfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digitizing Prints


Ralph Gibson and Annie Liebowitz both scan prints rather than negs - I guess
the quality of your print and the quality of the scanner are major
considerations. They would both have the best equipment available no doubt,
which would make a difference.

But I've got best results with a film scanner, like the other
correspondents.

Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)

   "I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it,
   and I don't know why I'll do it again."
   --Bart Simpson




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

It could also be that the print is in fact the performance that they admire
as well, and to recreate it is not where they choose to spend their energy.
As is the decision here for  lenzzman44 [lenzzman44@...]. ( Why can't
these people have REAL names?)  Anything other than the neg under the light
sourced focused on paper is going to be a different expression, so is a
printed scanned as a negative scanned. If not just in the work flow, also in
the final print.  Are these prints toned? Absolutely neutral? Printed on
glossy media, or heavily textured paper? All of those to me have relevance
in how to proceed. 

 

One of the best surfaces I scanned from a print was Agfa's 118. I truly
believe the only way to really know is to do some of them and see; scanned
flat bed, shoot with 8mp and film scan. I am quite happy with film scanning
and digital work to create new "master" files. Perhaps, it is due to the
limitations of my flat bed opposed to the limitations of my film scanner?


 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Smallfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digitizing Prints

 

Ralph Gibson and Annie Liebowitz both scan prints rather than negs - I guess
the quality of your print and the quality of the scanner are major
considerations. They would both have the best equipment available no doubt,
which would make a difference.

But I've got best results with a film scanner, like the other
correspondents.

Richard
--
http://smallfield. <http://smallfield.vze.com> vze.com
http://photos. <http://photos.smallfield.vze.com> smallfield.vze.com (Photos
web site)
http://warkworth. <http://warkworth.vze.com/> vze.com/ (Warkworth photo
essay)
http://picasaweb. <http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/>
google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

"I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, 
and I don't know why I'll do it again."
--Bart Simpson

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In this museum project I'm working on, I usually don't have the original
negative.  So, I'm stuck with old, beat-up prints.  I've been amazed at how
much information I can pull off some of those old prints.  Often the paper
texture limits the enlargement, but sometimes even it conveys an interesting
look -- not unlike watercolor paper we use.  If I'm lucky enough to have a
contact print, taking the final to 18 x 24 still results in a print that can
be very sharp -- at least in the center, which is about the only place some
of the old lenses performed well.  I use my Epson flatbed scanner at up to
800 ppi for the best prints.  The only time I've resorted to my 8 MP Canon
is for a poster re-production that was too large to scan (and not worth the
cost of a service bureau scanning-back job).  For the poster, which was a
water-color original, I used the Canon 45 TS lens to make a 14 MP image.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

This completely confirms what Ctein says in his new book on photo restoration. He uses the scanner as one of his strongest tools for pulling info out of a print and details a lot of nice moves done by scanning BW prints in manipulating them in the color domains. If you haven't seen it, take a look, you may enjoy it.  "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish: How to repair old and damaged photographs"

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:40:20 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digitizing Prints









  


    
            In this museum project I'm working on, I usually don't have the original

negative.  So, I'm stuck with old, beat-up prints.  I've been amazed at how

much information I can pull off some of those old prints.  Often the paper

texture limits the enlargement, but sometimes even it conveys an interesting

look -- not unlike watercolor paper we use.  If I'm lucky enough to have a

contact print, taking the final to 18 x 24 still results in a print that can

be very sharp -- at least in the center, which is about the only place some

of the old lenses performed well.  I use my Epson flatbed scanner at up to

800 ppi for the best prints.  The only time I've resorted to my 8 MP Canon

is for a poster re-production that was too large to scan (and not worth the

cost of a service bureau scanning-back job).  For the poster, which was a

water-color original, I used the Canon 45 TS lens to make a 14 MP image.



Paul

www.PaulRoark. com 





    
  

    
    




<!--

Interesting that someone mentioned Ralph Gibson scanning his prints, 
rather than his negs.   More than this, Gibson actually scans the 
prints *while still wet* (straight out of the wash), which, according 
to him, aids in getting additional detail in the final scans.  Must 
have a decent-sized scanner (I have a tabloid-size scanner, which has 
come in handy when scanning large-ish art work of others).


- Barrett

Many Thanks to all who responded with helpful insights to my question
about digitizing silver prints. I'm flatbed scanning the ones that
will fit the scanner and shooting the rest with an 8MP DSLR. No point
in collecting a lot more information than was in the original negative.

(The dust and scratches filter in Photoshop seems to do an amazing job
of removing print surface flaw artifacts without visibly degrading
sharpness.)

Jim Anderson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Barrett Benton <bwbenton@...> 
wrote:
> More than this, Gibson actually scans the 
> prints *while still wet* (straight out of the wash), which, according 
> to him, aids in getting additional detail in the final scans.

Sounds like wet-gate printing used in motion picture prints. There it produces a much richer 
image.