khen lim wrote:
> hi Moose
>
> My responses in between...
>
> On 02/07/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> .....The contact prints in the early part of the album have the negs
>> carefully stored behind them.
>>
>
> That's where I am at a disadvantage because I have no negs to work from.
>
I mentioned that to point out that, unlike many with old prints, I can
compare the detail on the neg with what's on the print. That provides
the basis for some things I said further down about the relative amount
of detail on neg vs. print.
> Although I have not yet started any serious work scanning them for my
>
>> brothers and our children and grandchildren, I have done some testing
>> and come to some preliminary conclusions.
>>
>> - The films of the time were slow, as were the lenses.
>>
>
>
> Yes. If my memory serves me well, I think it was Kodak film rated well below
> ISO100. As for the lens, how good could it possibly be considering it was
> only a Brownie??? f4.5?.......
>
>
> If you think the 6x9 is already limited, I hate to think what a Brownie 6x6
> would do...
>
I did say 6x9, didn't I? I meant 6x7, not that it makes any difference
for the point at hand.
> ............
>
> I don't think there's really much there but I'll let you be the judge when I
> can put it up for you to see.
>
Good idea! Can yoo post at a decent pixel size?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|