I think I'd first ask why the scanning doesn't seem to be working out.
Even an inexpensive scanner should be able to do the job. If you scan
the image at even 600 dpi you'll have at least twice the resolution of
the print. Inexpensive scanners also have fairly low dynamic range but
so does a B&W print. I suspect that the scanner is probably capturing
what needs to be captured but, as with many digital images, the rest
must be left to some creative post-processing.
That said, I think it would be instructive to also use a DSLR and
compare the "raw" images. Decide which is best before investing a lot
of labor in post-processing. I would use normal copy procedures (lights
at 45 degrees on either side and camera perfectly square to the image).
I'd take a color image in raw form and do the B&W conversion later in
PhotoShop.
One possible problem might be pebbled or grained paper. The pebbling or
grain can really stand out in the copy but, as Ctein points out in his
excellent book on restoration, the paper grain can be treated as large
diameter digital noise and suppressed with the likes of Noise Ninja or
other noise reduction software. If this or other restoration jobs are
important to you I would highly recommend reading Ctein's book "Digital
Restoration from Start to Finish". An excellent read for image
processing technique even if you're not doing restoration. Highly
recommended.
<http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Restoration-Start-Finish-photographs/dp/0240808142/ref=sr_1_1/002-1642730-4676842?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183296720&sr=8-1>
ps: If you've never done copy work with a camera before Ctein points
out that the old Kodak film era pub "Copying and Duplicating in Black
and White and Color" is still an excellent resource. I bought mine on
the web for about $2.
Chuck Norcutt
khen lim wrote:
> Hi
>
> My dad has a B+W contact print (6x6cm) but he doesn't have the negative.
> He's looking at trying to reproduce it at the highest resolution. This photo
> was captured using the Kodak Brownie. He claims to have tried scanning but
> it's not too good. If we're going to do a direct reprography, using say the
> E-510 (or other DSLR), how do you think we should approach this?
>
> Thanks
>
> K/
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|