Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Funny you should mention that. Just yesterday the mailman brought my
> copy of Ctein's just released "Digital Restoration from Start to
> Finish". I haven't read much of it yet but enough to know that removal
> of textured paper grain is something he specifically addresses.
> <http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Restoration-Start-Finish-photographs/dp/0240808142/sr=8-1/qid=1167910013/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3192476-2323027?ie=UTF8&s=books>
> At $26.37 it's a good deal from Amazon and the price is just high enough
> that it qualifies for free shipping.
>
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The thread, as I understood it, was about
viewing film images vs. digital. I agreed with Winsor about the
unsatisfactory nature of viewing slides with light box vs. viewing
digital/digitized images with a proper image browser. I then extended my
view of the problem to negative film, saying that viewing the film was
useless and the extant prints were often close to useless.
In my case, at least, the vast majority of the negatives are still here,
so restoration efforts on prints aren't necessary. Even the old family
album from my childhood is in good shape. When my mother put it
together, she kept the negs under the prints. Most prints at that time
were contact size, so the negs just fit nicely in the paste on corners
under the print. Old acid free black album paper, so the negs are like new.
Here's a comparison of a scan from a faded color print of a young Moose
vs. a scan of the neg stored under it. Color could be corrected, of
course, but the detail couldn't
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Misc/Comp02.jpg>.
Thanks for the info anyway. I'm storing it away for future reference.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
