I don't think the poster was arguing for mediocre quality. But, as you
did, recognize that some of that old stuff is going to have blocked
shadows, blown highlights and poor resolution. Some of it may not be
recoverable and much of it may not be worth the effort. Just as the
best camera to take any particular shot it the one you happen to have,
the best scan of a negative is the one you made and not the one you
didn't even try.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> ... I think it's very good advice and will make my future
>> scanning of old films and prints less "fussy".
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I was looking at a photography book from 1966 with work from many
>> recognized photographers from the time. By today's technical
>> standards parameters such as sharpness, blown highlights, color and
>> tonality it was not impressive. The printing and paper quality was
>> obviously suspect, likely the films were good but much was lost by
>> the time it got off the press. However it mattered little, it was
>> obviously the content that made the images memorable.
>
> I don't buy that crappy is fine as long as the content is good. If
> that 's the best that can be done, sure. But if it's just sloppy, why
> not do a good job?
>
>> As scanner operators, as we struggle to chase todays digital
>> expectations and yesterdays darkroom standards with these marginal
>> scanners
>
> What the heck is "marginal scanners" about? There are quite good
> scanners available quite reasonably. It it's a Krappy Scans" thing,
> fine, but why fight for high standards with poor equipment?
>
>> and not really making it on either end it helps to remember content
>> is the most important, possible for future viewers.
>>
>
> And yet, will better quality somehow detract from the content? When
> scanning old material, I try to find a balance between technique and
> effort and their effect on results.
>
> Especially when scanning a lot of material, I think some time spent
> determining what's possible is worthwhile. I spent a fair amount of
> time trying different setting and techniques on my dad's old 2 1/4 x
> 3 1/4 B&W negs of me as a baby. One I knew that any resolution above
> 600 dpi was wasted and some other characteristics, I was ready to do
> the best possible job with the least effort.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|