Greetings:
I would like to hear from anyone using a Nikon D-70. I'm a bit confused on
setting the ISO or using it on auto. Which would be best for any or most
situations?
Thanks,
Harry


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have this camera and use it for copy work exclusively.  If I am going to
take an original photo then I use a 4x5" and shoot film.

Anyway, I bought the D-70 because I have a suitcase full of Nikon lenses
already.  So it will not work in auto with old lenses.  What I do is take a
photo, then press the screen button to turn on the back display, then use
the 4-way button on the back to go through screen options and get the
histogram.  I shoot until I have a nice looking histogram.  You can't tell
much looking at the screen photo.

I would recommend that you set the ISO at default unless you need to change
it for a specific reason.  A good example of why you would want to change it
is if you were using the camera simply as a polaroid and trying to match a
film camera for previewing results, the digital camera is too sensitive to
match a slow film.  THere may be situations if you use a lot of high power
strobe lights that you need to cut back.  But ordinarily, I could not think
of a case where you want to change from the default setting.

I hope you have the manual for the camera, I think it is a download, when I
got the camera i didn't know the first thing about how to use it and I had
to RTFM.
--
Thomas Robinson
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com

>
> Greetings:
> I would like to hear from anyone using a Nikon D-70. I'm a bit confused on
> setting the ISO or using it on auto. Which would be best for any or most
> situations?
> Thanks,
> Harry
>

A friend has a large collection of her father's 16mm films.  They were in
poor condition so she had them cleaned and transferred to DVDs.

Now she wants to know how to preserve the original film.  Any ideas?

Jack Hotz
San Diego


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jack
Could you ask your friend where she had this done. We have 16mm films
and can't find anyone to transfer them.
Arleen

Subject: [genphoto] 16mm Film Preservation


A friend has a large collection of her father's 16mm films.  They were
in
poor condition so she had them cleaned and transferred to DVDs.

Now she wants to know how to preserve the original film.  Any ideas?

Jack Hotz
San Diego








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date:
9/30/2005



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello, I'm a newbie. I have been interested in
documenting and preserving historical documents in our
family.
This has been a big hit in our family, especially on
the holidays. It has just become a new tradition to
sit down after the big meal and get out the materials,
pictures from the year and new found documents or what
have you to put them all in our BIG family scrapbook.
It's also fun to flip through it to look at every ones
different styles... some like it nice and formal (the
old people) and others like it busy and quirky (like
me). But you can see every ones personality in all of
the pages, which is big fun in itself.
We have even gotten old documents from Paul Kruger
(former president of South Africa) that appointed a
family member to the postal service.
I am trying to find the best way to preserve this
document, because not only is it worth a lot to our
family, but it is worth money as well.
any suggestions?
Also, here is a site that I have found quite useful in
my research and writing my family history book. It
also has a bunch of stuff about scrabooking to
document family history.
have a looksee..
http://www.fambook.com

look forward to seeing every ones ideas!

Alice

Mrs. Alice Lindsay Venter





__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

Hello Alice
what a fun family thing to do, However the original old documents will lose
value when placed in a scrap book and opened to the air all of the time.  I
would check into getting an archviale or acid free box or binder with acid free
slip in page protectors to store the original and make a copy for the scrap
book. Do the same for old photo's.


genphoto@yahoogroups.com wrote:

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. hello everyone!
From: Alice Lindsay Venter


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alice Lindsay Venter
Subject: hello everyone!

Hello, I'm a newbie. I have been interested in
documenting and preserving historical documents in our
family.
This has been a big hit in our family, especially on
the holidays. It has just become a new tradition to
sit down after the big meal and get out the materials,
pictures from the year and new found documents or what
have you to put them all in our BIG family scrapbook.
It's also fun to flip through it to look at every ones
different styles... some like it nice and formal (the
old people) and others like it busy and quirky (like
me). But you can see every ones personality in all of
the pages, which is big fun in itself.
We have even gotten old documents from Paul Kruger
(former president of South Africa) that appointed a
family member to the postal service.
I am trying to find the best way to preserve this
document, because not only is it worth a lot to our
family, but it is worth money as well.
any suggestions?
Also, here is a site that I have found quite useful in
my research and writing my family history book. It
also has a bunch of stuff about scrabooking to
document family history.
have a looksee..
http://www.fambook.com

look forward to seeing every ones ideas!

Alice

Mrs. Alice Lindsay Venter





__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


GenPhoto http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/
Post message: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: genphoto-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: genphoto-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE MAIL STOPS! ASK YAHOO ABOUT IT! NOT ME!
Please do not try to contact me at the Yahoo Groups list owner address, use
editor@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------





---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ohhh, good idea. I will do that. It is pretty neat
looking at this old thing with Paul Kruger's (South
African President)actual signature on it.
My mother-in-law is also a direct decedent of his as
well. They have the old Kruger Rands that were to be
passed down through the family. Some of them
mysteriously went missing, but there are a few left
and she has some.

Alice

Mrs. Alice Lindsay Venter






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, JackH12345@a... wrote:
>
> A friend has a large collection of her father's 16mm films.  They
were in
> poor condition so she had them cleaned and transferred to DVDs.
>
> Now she wants to know how to preserve the original film.  Any ideas?

I am working on an upcoming site dealing with 16mm film preservation.
It will help teach archivists basic film handling procedures using
streaming video.

The most important thing you should do is never throw away the
original film once it has been transferred. A DVD is not an archival
storage medium. Aside from any possibility of deterioration of the
media, the data format employs a lossy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression) form of
compression, which can lead to loss of detail when a copy is made
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss) and means some of the
original detail of the image is lost should you transfer the data to
another media or format. This is called data migration and is
essential to preservation of digital media as formats become obsolete.

A 16mm film should be transferred to Digital Beta videotape. Digital
Beta (also called digitbeta or d-beta) is considered the format of
choice for archival storage of video media, although it does employ
compression (all digital video formats do as far as I know). Please
note, again, that I say the format of choice for archiving video, not
film. Film should be retained unless it is dangerous, such as some
nitrate based film. You should consult an expert if you suspect
nitrate film to determine whether it should be stored or destroyed. It
is not a simple issue.

No digital video medium is as archival as the original film stored
properly.

Read more about Digital Beta at Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Betacam

I work for Folkstreams (www.folkstreams.net) now and we archive our
16mm films at the Southern Folklife Collection in Digital Beta
(digibeta for short). One 16mm film is stored as well as a copy of the
digital transfer in Digital Betacam for each film.

Where can you have 16mm film transferred to digital format? Only a few
places are left to do this. We currently have our films transferred at
Colorlab, who are helping with the making of the archival practices
website.

http://www.colorlab.com/

They can look at your film and give you an estimate of the cost of
restoration, preservation and transfer. The transfer of my short home
  movie in 16mm to digibeta came to about $250 so it is not
inexpensive. Give them a call or email. They are very friendly.

This is not the only lab, so feel free to do your own research. All
current Folkstreams transfers are done by Colorlab as has one of my
own. There are probably some consumer level processors who will
transfer the film less expensively. Having a professional lab was
worth it for our special situation.

It is always a difficult position for people wishing to preserve
family photographs or films. To have a professional lab do the work it
can be prohibitive. If I had a large number of average family films, I
might decide to transfer them to DVD and leave it at that, perhaps a
few important films transferred to Digital Beta. I would try to
preserve the originals. That may not be realistic, so I would tend to
triage the films, spending more on the most important.

You can find general information on film preservation at

http://www.filmpreservation.org/

There is a site dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of
vernacular small format films at

http://www.littlefilm.org/

with a good text on preservation for the non-technical "family media
historian" wanting to preserve their films. Most should apply to 16mm.

http://www.littlefilm.org/Primer.html

They do lab work and also provide a page of lab contacts.


Its founding idea is very similar to my own reasons for developing
City Gallery (the site associated with this list---btw I promise I
will fix the link to the homepage for this group---Yahoo changed the
location behind my back). I have not always had enough time to devote
to maintaining City Gallery in recent years.

Steve Knoblock

Thanks a lot for your very detailed response to my question.  There is a lot
of information there.  Your time and effort is appreciated.

I have one follow-up question. You say:

  " Aside from any possibility of deterioration of the
media, the data format employs a lossy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression) form of
compression, which can lead to loss of detail when a copy is made
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss) and means some of the
original detail of the image is lost should you transfer the data to
another media or format."

In my friend's case the deed is already done.  The loss has already been
taken in the transfer of the film image to DVD.

If, for instance, one would want to edit the DVD, couldn't he copy the DVD to
a video editing prgram, edit it and copy the edited version back to another
DVD all without a further quality loss? ...if it stayed in the same MPEG-2
format.


Jack Hotz
San Diego


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JackH12345@... wrote:
> In my friend's case the deed is already done.  The loss has already been
> taken in the transfer of the film image to DVD.
>
> If, for instance, one would want to edit the DVD, couldn't he copy the DVD
> to
> a video editing prgram, edit it and copy the edited version back to
> another
> DVD all without a further quality loss? ...if it stayed in the same MPEG-2
> format.

No. Every time the data is saved in a lossy compression scheme like JPEG
or MPEG, further detail is discarded. That is why, for example, scanned
photos should always be saved in a lossless format like TIFF or PSD. If
you want a JPEG to share or post on the web, make a copy of the original.
Any further image manipulation (resizing, color correction, whatever)
should be done to (a copy of) the TIFF or PSD, not to an image that has
already been JPEG compressed, because when you save it again, it will be
re-compressed, and additional detail will be discarded. Same thing for
MPEG-compressed video images.

--
Chuck Linsley
linsley@...

>
>In my friend's case the deed is already done.  The loss has already been
>taken in the transfer of the film image to DVD.

If the originals exist, then they can be transferred to a more
archival format.

>
>If, for instance, one would want to edit the DVD, couldn't he copy the DVD to
>a video editing prgram, edit it and copy the edited version back to another
>DVD all without a further quality loss? ...if it stayed in the same MPEG-2

This is starting to get outside my expertise, so I asked our project
director for advice.

Digital Beta stores video with very little compression compared to
DVD, which is MPEG-2. The Library of Congress uses the Digital Beta
format. Although it is becoming obsolete, most archives believe the
installed base of machines will continue to make this format
accessible and viable. The Digibeta physically is a much more durable
format for long term storage than others. DVD is fairly fragile as
anyone who has rented one knows. Although the metal tape used in
Digibeta and MiniDV has good longevity for the magnetic recording, he
did recently have a MiniDV tape break, requiring repair. The Digital
Beta is likely to be more durable given its greater width.

Digital Beta and MiniDV contain comparable video data. The reason
Digibeta is preferred is the durability and reliability.

The main reason DVD is not considered archival is the heavy
compression applied to the video compared to the very light
compression applied by DV format. The digital camcorder formats,
Digital8, MiniDV and Digital Beta would have less compression than
DVD/MPEG. As far as I know, the three formats produce a DV output from
the camera, which may vary some in quality. The Digital8 may be a
little less quality than the other two. The MiniDV and Digital Beta
should generally be equal in quality.

If the DVD is copied without editing, there will naturally not be any
loss. If the DVD is edited and an new DVD generated, there can be
loss. To edit MPEG, the video must be decompressed and converted to
the editor's internal format, where you make your edits, then
compressed and converted back to MPEG. The problem with the heavy
compression of MPEG is when the video goes through a decompression,
editing and recompression cycle, there is significant loss compared to
editing DV.

I do some editing with my Digital 8 camera and Premiere, but am still
new to it. My experience has been that the DV (compressed) video
coming from the camera is very high quality. When I export to DVD
after editing, I see a reduction in quality. This varied with MPEG
encoders from application to application and they probably all have
different default settings.

Steve

Many thanks to Steve and Chuck fo all your help.  I am archiving the info for
future use and have passed it on to my friend.

Jack Hotz
San Diego


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know that we've talked about flatbed scanners and driver software on
here before ...

I have an HO Scanjet 3500c.  Nice scanner.  Does a nice job.  I **HATE**
the scanner driver that comes with it.  It's not bad if you want to scan
just a single image -- but I've got a 3 inch stack of photos that I want
to scan, and the thought of having to wait on the scanner software to
initialize for 8each* picture -- and then have to re-do the settings
each time is making me want to throw it out the window.  I have a Umax
Powerlook at school, and I love that software.  I've used other HP
scanners that had a much more friendly interface.

Any suggestions?

Theoretically, it saves the scanning profile, but I have to re-load it
for each picture, and then turn of image sharpening.

*sigh*

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
University of Tennessee
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:23:30 -0500, you wrote:

>I know that we've talked about flatbed scanners and driver software on
>here before ...
>
>I have an HO Scanjet 3500c.  Nice scanner.  Does a nice job.  I **HATE**
>the scanner driver that comes with it.  It's not bad if you want to scan

Our experience with an HP scanner was not good. It was purchased with
an HP computer. However, we were never able to get the HP scanner to
work reliably with the HP scanner. The software was poorly design
also. There was no way to turn off automatic features. You could not
tell it to stop analyzing the image and making assumptions about how
it should be scanned. For example, it refused to scan 45rpm record
jackets without rotating them to an number of crazy angles. You could
not turn this "fix rotated image" feature off. It would also need to
be unplugged and powered back up frequently to reset.

We now have an Epson Perfection 4180 PHOTO and are very happy with its
semi-Pro features. It does not quite have the resolution to satisfy my
requirements for 35mm negative scanning. I was a little disappointed
with the results of scanning 35mm black and white negative film and
with quality of prints I could make. The next level up in the Epson
line would probably be better for a professional photographer or art
photographer, but 35mm negatives and slides are generally acceptable
for family photos. Although not a large area (about 6x4cm) you can do
some old medium format negatives. I would have liked a larger area for
scanning transparencies, up to 4x5 inches or larger, but that is a
rarity. A film scanner would be preferable for the 35mm negatives and
slides.

The driver is fairly good with the ability to save profiles. You can
use the preview to setup a number of scans of slides or negatives
automatically. I find all scanners fairly slow resetting between print
scans. I do not have to reload the profile or turn any "dummies"
features off in the Pro mode. It has three levels of modes.

I would not call the interface totally friendly or intuitive. The
proverbial grandmother might have trouble with it, certainly the pro
features, but I find it acceptable.

Steve

I don't know about a HP 3500 but my HP 4070 comes with a HP Director
that is loaded to my desk top where I can set all of my settings and
they are kept for all of the photo's that I'm scanning for a complet
session of scanning.
If I scan using the quick button on the front of the scanner I have
to set the settings for each picture.
Not sure if this is the problem with your 3500 but it could be if
that is the way that you are scanning.
I've used HP scanners for years and have been very happy.

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "Susan B. Farmer" <sfarmer@g...>
wrote:
>
> I know that we've talked about flatbed scanners and driver
software on
> here before ...
>
> I have an HO Scanjet 3500c.  Nice scanner.  Does a nice job.  I
**HATE**
> the scanner driver that comes with it.  It's not bad if you want
to scan
> just a single image -- but I've got a 3 inch stack of photos that
I want
> to scan, and the thought of having to wait on the scanner software
to
> initialize for 8each* picture -- and then have to re-do the
settings
> each time is making me want to throw it out the window.  I have a
Umax
> Powerlook at school, and I love that software.  I've used other HP
> scanners that had a much more friendly interface.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Theoretically, it saves the scanning profile, but I have to re-
load it
> for each picture, and then turn of image sharpening.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Susan
> -----
> Susan Farmer
> sfarmer@g...
> University of Tennessee
> Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/
>

Quoting LDYTRAMP <ldytramp@...>:

> I don't know about a HP 3500 but my HP 4070 comes with a HP Director
> that is loaded to my desk top where I can set all of my settings and
> they are kept for all of the photo's that I'm scanning for a complet
> session of scanning.
> If I scan using the quick button on the front of the scanner I have
> to set the settings for each picture.
> Not sure if this is the problem with your 3500 but it could be if
> that is the way that you are scanning.
> I've used HP scanners for years and have been very happy.

This one has the director as well -- but the "sharpen" defaults to
"medium" with every image.  I did manage to make it scan everyting at
300 dpi and safe as a .tif file, but I don't want the software deciding
what I do and don't want sharpened.

*sigh*

susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
University of Tennessee
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

>300 dpi and safe as a .tif file, but I don't want the software deciding
>what I do and don't want sharpened.

I agree that this should be an option.

The manufacturers have something of a dilemma when it comes to
sharpening. Images require a little sharpening to account for the
fuzziness introduced by the scanning process. In theory all images
produced by a scanner should be slightly sharpened. However, it should
be optional. The user should be able to determine what is done to the
image. the user may want to scan without any sharpening so a "raw"
image is produced. This could be stored and later they may use any
sharpening tool of their choice (every unsharp mask tool is different
according to the algorithm, default settings choices, etc.) on the
image or leave the decision to others at a future time.

Steve

Susan go to Hp Scanning and set the scanning values you like. Then
bring up the pull down menu under Scan on that page, pick Scan
Profile then Save Profile. Give it a name and save it.  Now go to
the HP Director home page (where you can pick Sacn Picture, Scan
Doc. etc) bring up the pull down menu under Settings pick Setting &
Preferences then Button Setting.  On that page towards the bottom is
a button Modify Scan Picture Settings click on that then click in
the box to pick scan profile and pick the one that you just saved
and click on the apply buttom.   This should fix your problem
according to my help notes.

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "Susan B. Farmer" <sfarmer@g...>
wrote:
>
> Quoting LDYTRAMP <ldytramp@y...>:
>
> > I don't know about a HP 3500 but my HP 4070 comes with a HP
Director
> > that is loaded to my desk top where I can set all of my settings
and
> > they are kept for all of the photo's that I'm scanning for a
complet
> > session of scanning.
> > If I scan using the quick button on the front of the scanner I
have
> > to set the settings for each picture.
> > Not sure if this is the problem with your 3500 but it could be if
> > that is the way that you are scanning.
> > I've used HP scanners for years and have been very happy.
>
> This one has the director as well -- but the "sharpen" defaults to
> "medium" with every image.  I did manage to make it scan everyting
at
> 300 dpi and safe as a .tif file, but I don't want the software
deciding
> what I do and don't want sharpened.
>
> *sigh*
>
> susan
> -----
> Susan Farmer
> sfarmer@g...
> University of Tennessee
> Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/
>

Quoting LDYTRAMP <ldytramp@...>:

> Susan go to Hp Scanning and set the scanning values you like. Then
> bring up the pull down menu under Scan on that page, pick Scan
> Profile then Save Profile. Give it a name and save it.  Now go to
> the HP Director home page (where you can pick Sacn Picture, Scan
> Doc. etc) bring up the pull down menu under Settings pick Setting &
> Preferences then Button Setting.  On that page towards the bottom is
> a button Modify Scan Picture Settings click on that then click in
> the box to pick scan profile and pick the one that you just saved
> and click on the apply buttom.   This should fix your problem
> according to my help notes.
>

The awful thing is that I've done all that.  Sharpening isn't one of the
things that can be set and kept in a profile -- so it still has to be
done every picture.  It *does* however, remember that I want things
scanned at 300 dpi and saved as a .tif file, so that's something!

I'll check when I get home tonight, and try and re-save a profile and
see if it makes any difference -- on the off chance that I saved before
I realized that sharpening wasn't set.  Loose nut on the keyboard and
all that .....

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
University of Tennessee
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

I have found that any "automatic" setting guarantees the result will not be
publication quality.  If it is possible to disable all scanner adjustments
made by the scanner driver, and just use it to run the motor and lamp, then
you will get a raw file.  I scan everything in the high bit mode (16 bit
greyscale or 48 bit rgb) because vintage photos are often faded or need work
and there is not enough information in the 8 bit mode to avoid banding.

Some scanner drivers cannot be run like this, in which case you need a
professional driver, such as Vuescan.  I use this often.

Once I have a raw file, I open in Photoshop. To set the levels (high and low
point) I use "levels".  When the dialogue box opens, I hold down the command
& option keys (I am on Mac, similar keys on Windows & Linux) and the screen
turns blank.  While holding down these keys, I move the low value slider in
the levels, and as I move it the screen will display only the clipped
pixels.  I go to where pixels in the image area clip, then back off
slightly.  Repeat for high values.  Then I take my hands off the command &
option keys and move the mid point slider to the point where the image is
well balanced between light and dark tones.  I never sharpen. This image is
now processed, and you may do some dodging and burning.  I do most of that
with the history erase tool, set my brush at about 5% and tame the most
contrasty sections of the image.  I save as a tif in the high bit mode, and
it is publication quality.

Hope this helps
--
Thomas Robinson
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com

>greyscale or 48 bit rgb) because vintage photos are often faded or need work
>and there is not enough information in the 8 bit mode to avoid banding.

I have always found this to be true working with vintage photographs.
For some reason, albumen prints from the 19th century need more
"headroom" than ordinary black and white. Even a small change in
lightness or contrast seems to affect albumen or sepia tone images (I
am not sure about sepia toned black and white images or neutral toned
prints from the 19th century). One explanation is they have more open
shadows, perhaps a wider dynamic range. Several years ago this came up
on the list, but no real answer was settled on.

Steve

A friend wants to save her family history by publishing a "scrapbook"
of family trees, text, photos etc.  She isn't interested in
genealogical data but in an easy-to-read layman's version.

I am looking for examples and ideas.  Can you help?

Jack

I would scan it page by page and make a pdf file out of it.  I would then
make a CD-ROM
of the pdf file and offer anyone who wanted a printed file the CD which
they can take
to Office Max and have it printed and put into a binding.

  Jerry Hale
  Deltona, FL

this is a big undertaking.  I made one for each of my children last
year printed from June to the middle of Dec. before I had everthing I
needed. I used my genealogy program to print the family trees, then I
used Print Shop to import all of the photo's and family stories into a
file, created generation pages so that the book could be tabed by
generations.  You can buy self stick colored tabs that are on a page
for you printer Avery puts them out, so that you can tab your
genertations. I think scaning you family trees and importing into a
presentation program would make putting the book together easier than
the way that I did mine.  My version of Print Shop will let you create
a publacation and save it in a PDF file which allows you to share it
easily. FTM also lets you creat a family book with all of the features
needed and will let you convert the book to PDF.  There may be other
programs that will let you do the same thing these are just the two
that I have.  However before you get to the saving and printing you
still have to import into the program and that takes a long time.
When I put my books together I used a three ring binder as I had too
much to use a binding combe. The binders I used had a clear sleeve on
the front and spine so that I could creat a cover and spline graphic.
It's a really nice thing once it is all put together. I am interested
in genealogy so I included birth certificates, marriage certificates,
death certificates, certificates of accomplisments etc. that I could
find as well as copies of family storys and pictures. I started with a
core couple, my parents and orginized it with decendants first and
then ancestors.
Must be one of my hobbies as I just seem to go on and on anyway a lot
of work but so worth it when it is finished

Gwen Hopkins
--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Hotz" <JackH12345@a...> wrote:
>
> A frind wants to save her family history by publishing a "scrapbook"
> of family trees, text, photos etc.  She isn't interested in
> genealogical data but in an easy-to-read layman's version.
>
> I am looking for examples and ideas.  Can you help?
>
> Jack
>

For people contemplating putting together a family, be careful when
working with photo corners. I purchased a quality three ring archival
album with slipcase and heavy card stock photo sheets with clear
covers to create an album for some of our significant or interesting
family photos. I purchased archival photo corners, which are
transparent and have the adhesive kept back form the corners to reduce
chance of oozing out on the photo. Although I had never used this kind
of album before, I thought I was prepared to protect my photos.

To practice putting together a page, I got out one of my photographs
printed on the inkjet. I began peeling the corners off their non-stick
pad. I set the first corner in place, fitted the print into it to
place the next corner. The corners sometimes resist peeling off the
base and can be hard to handle without getting it stuck to you. I
fumbled the corner and it landed right on the image surface. Needless
to say it pulled image right off the paper when I removed it. If this
had been an important family photograph, it likely would have
destroyed it.

Be careful using photo corners. I now create a blank to use as a
template. I take a sheet of bond paper and cut it to the size of
image, then I use that to position the corners and get them seated
before arching the photo slightly to mount it. There may be a better
way, but this is how I did it.

I am considering going back to clear photo pages where the photos are
inserted into pockets.

Steve

Could someone in this group advise as to whether or not a particular
segment within a photo, namely a calendar, can be enhanced to the point
of actually being able to read the date on the calendar?

Using tweezers to manipulate those sticky little critters helps, but there are
still a lot of problems getting the photo corners to stay where you want them.

Gary
2 November 2005
Baltimore
http://home.att.net/~g.ruppert


-------------- Original message from Steve Knoblock
<knoblock_private@...>: --------------


> For people contemplating putting together a family, be careful when
> working with photo corners. I purchased a quality three ring archival
> album with slipcase and heavy card stock photo sheets with clear
> covers to create an album for some of our significant or interesting
> family photos. I purchased archival photo corners, which are
> transparent and have the adhesive kept back form the corners to reduce
> chance of oozing out on the photo. Although I had never used this kind
> of album before, I thought I was prepared to protect my photos.
>
> To practice putting together a page, I got out one of my photographs
> printed on the inkjet. I began peeling the corners off their non-stick
> pad. I set the first corner in place, fitted the print into it to
> place the next corner. The corners sometimes resist peeling off the
> base and can be hard to handle without getting it stuck to you. I
> fumbled the corner and it landed right on the image surface. Needless
> to say it pulled image right off the paper when I removed it. If this
> had been an important family photograph, it likely would have
> destroyed it.
>
> Be careful using photo corners. I now create a blank to use as a
> template. I take a sheet of bond paper and cut it to the size of
> image, then I use that to position the corners and get them seated
> before arching the photo slightly to mount it. There may be a better
> way, but this is how I did it.
>
> I am considering going back to clear photo pages where the photos are
> inserted into pockets.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> GenPhoto http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/
> Post message: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: genphoto-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: genphoto-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE MAIL STOPS! ASK YAHOO ABOUT IT! NOT ME!
> Please do not try to contact me at the Yahoo Groups list owner address, use
> editor@...
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hard to tell without seeing it, Charles.  Assuming you have it in
digital format, send me a copy of the photo or just the section with
the calendar, and I'll give it a shot.  Send it to my email address
above, though, not the list, which would probably reject the
attachment.

............Mike

On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Charles Stamp wrote:

> Could someone in this group advise as to whether or not a particular
> segment within a photo, namely a calendar, can be enhanced to the point
> of actually being able to read the date on the calendar?

Charles:

It's possible but depends on the sharpness of the original image - have
you tried a microscope?
If you see the grain of the film and cannot resolve the lettering then
enhancement would be problematical. You can't enhance what was never there.

Good luck.

Carroll Hughes

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:36:07 -0000, you wrote:

>Could someone in this group advise as to whether or not a particular
>segment within a photo, namely a calendar, can be enhanced to the point
>of actually being able to read the date on the calendar?

You may be familiar with the demonstration where you look at a blocky
digital image up close and see nothing but random blocks of color and
shade, but step back and you see an image of Lincoln. This effect can
mean scaning a photo and zooming in on text can be more difficult to
read. Sometimes a 10x loupe or a magnifying glass intended for reading
(less powerful than the loupe) can help, but the same effect applies,
only to a lesser degree in my experience.

One thing I have done is scan the area of interest, bring that into my
image editor, play with the zoom and contrast filters to help bring
out the text. The contrast helps more than zoom in my opinion.

I have not had good results with reading text in photos by magnifying
it. I've tried to do the same thing you are, reading calendars and
other documents, peering into photos on the wall in the background of
family photos. Sometimes it is easier to read when you do not magnify
the image. I have had varying success with magnification. You will
have to experiment.

Steve