Bill,
I agree, if the negatives have been properly protected in a professional
way, they can be great. I have some of these in 5x7 and 3.5x5 studio shots.
But, if they have been tumbled into shoe boxes, or, in my case, Kodak print
paper boxes, they can be a challenge. I had a wet darkroom in my early
years of photography, but, since a move over 40 years ago, my enlarger and
trays have been in boxes in the attic. I don't think, at age 78, that I
will be returning to that process. It's too hard on the old back. :-)
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:12 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Coolscan V ED discontinued
>
> given the quality
> of the older images, the latest and greatest scanners are not necessarily
> a
> requirement.
>
> I with you till this. Many of the older images (ie. med. format B&W) are
> remarkable, and deserve wet darkroom printing. Scanner technology hit the
> peak about twenty years ago, anyway, with some of the great drum scanners,
> and the drum substitutes all peaked at least ten years ago.
>
> I/v never been pleased with the flatbeds, so I got a Minolta MultiPro, and
> am really pleased, but I built a wet darkroom anyway.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|