I use a dual path for copying old family photographs. First, to preserve the
image for the future, I photograph it in B&W to make a long-lasting, high
resolution, 35mm negative. An OM auto-bellows, various standard (i.e.,
non-macro) Zuiko lenses, and a home-made copy stand work well enough for my
purposes. Then (since this summer, when I got a Olympus film scanner and an
Acer 620ST flat-bed scanner to handle the old roll-film negatives and work
with the SCSI interface on my PC), I scan either the original or the 35mm
negative to get a digital copy to manipulate on my computer.
A key point in any archiving venture is that the data must migrate to new
storage medium in a timely fashion. Within my memory, tape cassettes and
8-inch floppy disks were the storage media of choice on PC's. There are
still a very few PC's with 5.25" floppies at my work. How long before 3.5"
floppies and CD's become obsolete? Remember that hard drives always crash,
so they aren't archival storage.
Migration to contemporary storage media is a vital consideration for digital
data in aerospace work. The Germans who were brought to the US after W.W.II
always felt most comfortable with a stack of paper in their desk drawer.
There's something to be said for that attitude, especially if it's acid-free
paper.
Nick Smoliga
smoliga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SvT TF12 - Investment Projects
931.454.6947
1103 Avenue B
Arnold AFB, TN 37389-1400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Motor Sport Visions Photography [SMTP:msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 12:48 PM
> To: dgporter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Print Copying
>
> In a message dated 9/12/1999 Derrick Porter <dgporter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
>
> << I want to copy quite a number of old photographs that I have
> inherited from my mother. >>
>
> <snip> and...
>
> << A second question. Does anyone have any suggestions for removing
> photographs from an album? The glue that my mother used appears to
> be holding as firmly now as when she used it eighty years ago. >>
>
> My advice would be to do this digitally. I am amazed at the output
> quality that is possible now with digital output. (I never thought I
> would say that as a "purist type" photographer either...but it's true
> and I can't ignore it.) If you get high quality scans done of the photos
> in question, you can "fix" any of the problems from glue, etc. in
> Photoshop or the like. The files will be (kinda) archival and the
> methods of priting them will only continue to improve over time (and the
> options are pretty darn good right now).
>
> As a newcomer to the list I sure hope that there aren't any past nasty
> photographic vs. digital threads that I re-awaken with this advice. My
> take is that with the technology available today I see no reason to make
> photographic duplicates of old prints when one can more than likely
> clone them easier and more accurately digitally. I know it sure is alot
> easier to fix problems in Photoshop than with a brush too.
>
> Good luck on your project! Sounds like a worthy one for sure...
>
> Mike Veglia
> Motor Sport Visions Photography
> www.motorsportvisions.com
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|