Solinar
Analog Preferred
Hello Richard, in one way it sad to see the paradigm shift and the total abandonment of analog imaging by the multitudes. On the other hand, I've been able to migrate back to medium format and to build a darkroom for a small fraction of what it would of cost a decade ago.
In addition to a couple of TLR's, I've acquired three medium format folders which are very old school range finders. They include an Isolette III, Super Isolette and a Record III.
I'm also thinking about getting a Koni Rapid Omega. It is also a RF with a leaf shutter, but it is anything but light weight or compact. To me at least, the old 6x9 format has a look that digital can't match.
Yep it's sad to see rampant stampede of the herd towards an all digital universe, but in truth the time has come when the art and alchemy of producing silver based prints may no longer be a commercially viable proposition.
In addition to a couple of TLR's, I've acquired three medium format folders which are very old school range finders. They include an Isolette III, Super Isolette and a Record III.
I'm also thinking about getting a Koni Rapid Omega. It is also a RF with a leaf shutter, but it is anything but light weight or compact. To me at least, the old 6x9 format has a look that digital can't match.
Yep it's sad to see rampant stampede of the herd towards an all digital universe, but in truth the time has come when the art and alchemy of producing silver based prints may no longer be a commercially viable proposition.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Hi Brian,
Yes, "anyone" is a little broad, but the point was not that of skill, but there will be access to a existing body of code that will be adaptable, and it's also not a "hidden secret".
Reading older medium can be a problem, but CD's & DVD's are not formats limited to a single industry or a limited audience. It's a mass consumer device, something that has no equivalent. But if it's trashed, it's trashed, that applies to negs, prints, slides, harddrives or CD's. People who want their images to last, will find ways of doing so, for negs & prints, that means using archival quality stock & storage. For digital, that means make multiple copies.
Nothing beats opening up an album and sharing it with someone, that's why I print my keepers. The bummer part is when there's only one set of prints but more than one person that wants it. I have this old b&w print of my parents that I have to share with my sister... at least we live in the same city. Due to it's textured surface, I haven't been able make a good copy or scan of it.
Still using MFM drives?!?!? My last ESDI drives gave up years ago.
Yes, "anyone" is a little broad, but the point was not that of skill, but there will be access to a existing body of code that will be adaptable, and it's also not a "hidden secret".
Reading older medium can be a problem, but CD's & DVD's are not formats limited to a single industry or a limited audience. It's a mass consumer device, something that has no equivalent. But if it's trashed, it's trashed, that applies to negs, prints, slides, harddrives or CD's. People who want their images to last, will find ways of doing so, for negs & prints, that means using archival quality stock & storage. For digital, that means make multiple copies.
Nothing beats opening up an album and sharing it with someone, that's why I print my keepers. The bummer part is when there's only one set of prints but more than one person that wants it. I have this old b&w print of my parents that I have to share with my sister... at least we live in the same city. Due to it's textured surface, I haven't been able make a good copy or scan of it.
Still using MFM drives?!?!? My last ESDI drives gave up years ago.
S
sfaust
Guest
I agree that the archival status of digital isn't an issue. I've been in the computer industry when the 'super highway' was still a dirt road, mag tapes were still in widespread use, and before the first home PC was even born. I still have files that originated on mag tape, have moved on over the years through various media bases, and now reside on CD-ROM and hard disk. Its never been an issue in all that time, and I don't see it becoming one in the near future either. There will always be a market for the software tools and hardware to make the migration from file formats or physical media to another. Where there is a need, there is someone there to fulfill it. I don't see the industry casting aside users with billions of RAW files to convert and move, and no way to do so. Just isn't going happen short of a catastrophic incident, in which case our negatives will be the least of our worries 
In the end, the images will gradually move from media to media, still retaining its 100% original state. It won't deteriorate over time since its not stagnant, and the images get a new media base every 10 years or so. Image all those film prints that are deteriorating at the major studios, and what shape they would be in if they got a new media base every 15 years. Pristine most likely. And digitally, you can duplicate them as many times as you wish, even duplicating the duplicates, and never loose any image quality.
For archives, you can't ask for much more. Other than to be able to search though thousands and thousand of images in minutes, with cross referencing, dynamic linking, categories, full exhaustive technical details on each image, and all with a thumbnail and/or full screen preview representation. Oh yea, and the ability to transmit the original anywhere around the world in a few minutes, and still have an original (or two or three) in your possession at all time. We have that with digital, and nothing even remotely close with negatives, nor will we.
Even my film gets digitized for archival purposes. I can store hundreds of images on a single CD-ROM, store the second copy off site, and still have the negatives as a last resort backup should the need arise. And I can even store them in significantly less space, even if I make two or three copies of each CD.
With all the archival advantages, and the current quality of digital imaging, its getting easier and easier to skip the film step and originate digitally. Unless I am after a specific look that a film gives that I can't reproduce, am making huge prints, or just want to shoot film for the love of it, its getting easier and easier to grab the digital SLR rather than a film camera. I love to shoot film, and I'm finding I love to shoot digital as well.
Film is far from dead, but digital is also very alive. I find they compliment each other quite well, just like range finders compliment SLR's. I won't choose either because I can't, and also because I don't have to or want to
In the end, the images will gradually move from media to media, still retaining its 100% original state. It won't deteriorate over time since its not stagnant, and the images get a new media base every 10 years or so. Image all those film prints that are deteriorating at the major studios, and what shape they would be in if they got a new media base every 15 years. Pristine most likely. And digitally, you can duplicate them as many times as you wish, even duplicating the duplicates, and never loose any image quality.
For archives, you can't ask for much more. Other than to be able to search though thousands and thousand of images in minutes, with cross referencing, dynamic linking, categories, full exhaustive technical details on each image, and all with a thumbnail and/or full screen preview representation. Oh yea, and the ability to transmit the original anywhere around the world in a few minutes, and still have an original (or two or three) in your possession at all time. We have that with digital, and nothing even remotely close with negatives, nor will we.
Even my film gets digitized for archival purposes. I can store hundreds of images on a single CD-ROM, store the second copy off site, and still have the negatives as a last resort backup should the need arise. And I can even store them in significantly less space, even if I make two or three copies of each CD.
With all the archival advantages, and the current quality of digital imaging, its getting easier and easier to skip the film step and originate digitally. Unless I am after a specific look that a film gives that I can't reproduce, am making huge prints, or just want to shoot film for the love of it, its getting easier and easier to grab the digital SLR rather than a film camera. I love to shoot film, and I'm finding I love to shoot digital as well.
Film is far from dead, but digital is also very alive. I find they compliment each other quite well, just like range finders compliment SLR's. I won't choose either because I can't, and also because I don't have to or want to
JohnL
Very confused
Kin
I have had some success with duplicating old prints that were on a textured paper, by applying a tiny bit of blur. Of course this depends on the size of the pattern in the paper, but you may be able to get rid of enough of the pattern without destroying the sharpness of the original image. You can also try a bit of resharpening after.
HTH, John
I have had some success with duplicating old prints that were on a textured paper, by applying a tiny bit of blur. Of course this depends on the size of the pattern in the paper, but you may be able to get rid of enough of the pattern without destroying the sharpness of the original image. You can also try a bit of resharpening after.
HTH, John
oftheherd
Veteran
Kin Lau said:
Painting with light is the old time method I was taught for copying prints with textured surfaces (by the old sarge teaching photography in an investigative school, to give credit where credit is due). There are several ways to paint with light. What I am referring to here is to put the print of a flat surface, with the camera lens focused on and at a 90 degree angle to the surface of the print. Turn all the lights off and use a normal light bulb on a cord so you can move it around. Keep it out of the lens viewing (flare) area, but constantly and quickly move it all around the photo. Top to bottom, left to right top to bottom, both, etc.
Do that multiple times during a long exposure of at least several seconds. Obviously it requires experimentation due to film type differences and their reaction to that type/color of light as well as the duration of the exposure (possible receprocity). That constant movement from all angles tends to light up all the nooks and crannies of the photographic surface. In your pattern of movements, remember that is what you are trying to do, without overexposing anything. It sounds complicated, but after having it demostrated, we were all pretty much able to do it, using the sarge's settings and copying as best we could, his movements. We were using 4x5 press cameras, but it should work with anything.
Good luck.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I should be able to try it again once I wrestle the print back from my sister. I can practice the light painting with my DReb till I get it right.
I don't think blurring is going to work, since the texture runs like ridges, and there's way to much of it.
Thanks for the suggestions.
I don't think blurring is going to work, since the texture runs like ridges, and there's way to much of it.
Thanks for the suggestions.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Hey Brian,
"Average SnapShooter".. "archive". Do they even belong in the same sentence? These will be the same people where the family vacation pics are stuck together on in the album, and the old slides are in the damp basement.
My wife's grandfather left glass neg's from the early 1900's, that are currently touring Canada as part of a heritage exhibit. But I don't see that kind of quality anymore in anything for consumer consumption. Seeing how they made poster size prints from those old negs where you can still see the dirt under the fingernails is one of the things that encouraged me to try b&w. Colour film will not have the same longevity.
"Average SnapShooter".. "archive". Do they even belong in the same sentence?
These will be the same people where the family vacation pics are stuck together on in the album, and the old slides are in the damp basement.My wife's grandfather left glass neg's from the early 1900's, that are currently touring Canada as part of a heritage exhibit. But I don't see that kind of quality anymore in anything for consumer consumption. Seeing how they made poster size prints from those old negs where you can still see the dirt under the fingernails is one of the things that encouraged me to try b&w. Colour film will not have the same longevity.