I have digitized ten lantern slides I discovered in the Dallmeyer archive.

http://www.samackenna.co.uk/wetplate/lanternslides/lantern_slides.html

I believe that the ten slides contain photos taken at two different periods in
the late nineteenth century, those featuring workers wearing wing collars being
taken some years later than those wearing soft collars.

I would be grateful for any comments about this series of lantern slides.

Seán MacKenna

I have quite a few negatives from the 1940's that I recently acquired from my
grandmother.  They were just stuck here and there.  I would like to know the
best solution for storing them.  Any suggestions?

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "Krista" <khillman@...> wrote:
>
> I have quite a few negatives from the 1940's that I recently acquired from my
grandmother.  They were just stuck here and there.  I would like to know the
best solution for storing them.  Any suggestions?
>
Use archival, P.A.T.-tested products such as those found at
www.lightimpressionsdirect.com or other quality archival storage product
sellers.

You can either carefully slide them into poly sleeves or use the negative
envelopes (I would prefer envelopes).  Store them separately from prints, in
either an archival file or box.  First, so that you don't have negatives and any
matching prints in the same place (should something happen to that storage box
or area) and second because there could be a reaction between the two and cause
degradation.

Brina Bolanz
www.restoredstories.com

Carla, have you tried contacting the local historical society & public library
local history library?  There may be a city directory that would list your
photographer.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vaschs2/index.htm
http://genealogytrails.com/vir/scott/
http://vagenweb.org/scott/

Stacye in Virginia

as we probably all know, Kodacolor II was a fiasco -- it faded way to
easy.  I've got older color prints that are still in good shape.

So I want to scan these photos (and do some color correction).  The
problem, however, is the paper.  It's that really *rough* textured
paper that produces interesting artifacts when scanned.  Does anybody
have a suggestion for scanning that paper with minimal garbage?

Has anybody ever tried scanning negatives with a "normal" flatbed
scanner using a mirror?  (The scanner that I used to have access to
had a transparency lid -- this one doesn't.)  My thought is to place a
mirror over the negative and scan it.  Anybody tried that?  How do you
scan your negatives?

Thanks,
Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
Division of Science and Math
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM, <genphoto@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>  I had a picture from the late 1800s to early 1900s that did weird things
> on a scanner besides the fact that it was too big. I used my digital camera
> and took a picture of it outside. I've found pics done that way seem to work
> best in light shade although I've only done black and whites that way
> including some WWII era.
> 2.   newer Old Pictures
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/message/2888;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMWUwa2VsBF9TAz\
k3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BG1zZ0lkAzI4ODgEc2VjA2Rtc2\
cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDk1Mzk0Mg--> Posted
> by: "Susan Farmer" sfarmer@...
> <sfarmer@...?Subject=+Re%3Anewer%20Old%20Pictures>   baker_farmer
> <http://profiles.yahoo.com/baker_farmer>  Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:15 pm (PDT)
>
> as we probably all know, Kodacolor II was a fiasco -- it faded way to
> easy. I've got older color prints that are still in good shape.
>
> So I want to scan these photos (and do some color correction). The
> problem, however, is the paper. It's that really *rough* textured
> paper that produces interesting artifacts when scanned. Does anybody
> have a suggestion for scanning that paper with minimal garbage?
>
> Has anybody ever tried scanning negatives with a "normal" flatbed
> scanner using a mirror? (The scanner that I used to have access to
> had a transparency lid -- this one doesn't.) My thought is to place a
> mirror over the negative and scan it. Anybody tried that? How do you
> scan your negatives?
>
> Thanks,
> Susan
> -----
> Susan Farmer
> sfarmer@... <sfarmer%40goldsword.com>
> Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
> Division of Science and Math
> http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/
>
>   Back to top <#12342aa58dd43dea_toc>
>  Reply to sender
> <sfarmer@...?Subject=Re%3Anewer%20Old%20Pictures> | Reply to
> group <genphoto@yahoogroups.com?Subject=+Re%3Anewer%20Old%20Pictures> | Reply
> via web post
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbDJncjl2BF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\
E1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BG1zZ0lkAzI4ODgEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3\
JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDk1Mzk0Mg--?act=reply&messageNum=2888>
>  Messages in this topic
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/message/2888;_ylc=X3oDMTM1ZmFuZ3ZoBF9TAz\
k3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BG1zZ0lkAzI4ODgEc2VjA2Rtc2\
cEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDk1Mzk0MgR0cGNJZAMyODg4>(1)
>     Recent Activity
>
>    -   3
>    New
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM29tNTI1BF9T\
Azk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJz\
BHN0aW1lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->
>
>  Visit Your Group
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2NnOTgzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGd\
ycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDk\
1Mzk0Mg-->
>   Celebrity Parents
>
> Spotlight on
Kids<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14ha5dbl5/M=493064.11674890.13655129.8674578/D=\
groups/S=1705040837:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1250961142/L=/B=5WAHAEPDhCs-/J=12509539426259\
56/K=rX4TVUejQoWWO5QAoklXig/A=5807836/R=0/SIG=11sokji2u/*http://omg.yahoo.com/bl\
ogs/goddess/spotlight-to-nightlight>
>
> Hollywood families
>
> share stories
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Small Business
Group<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h8pf26m/M=493064.12016272.13586184.8674578/D\
=groups/S=1705040837:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1250961142/L=/B=5mAHAEPDhCs-/J=1250953942625\
956/K=rX4TVUejQoWWO5QAoklXig/A=5758221/R=0/SIG=124m43uve/*http://finance.groups.\
yahoo.com/group/BankofAmerica_SmallBusiness/>
>
> Share experiences
>
> with owners like you
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Cat Owners
Group<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h3vpmdo/M=493064.12016263.12445670.8674578/D\
=groups/S=1705040837:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1250961142/L=/B=52AHAEPDhCs-/J=1250953942625\
956/K=rX4TVUejQoWWO5QAoklXig/A=5522128/R=0/SIG=11kt0eu7c/*http://advision.webeve\
nts.yahoo.com/domoreforcats/>
>
> Join a community
>
> for cat lovers
>    Need to Reply?
>
> Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the
> Daily Digest.
>    Create New Topic
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaDQ1MmhjBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\
E1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMT\
I1MDk1Mzk0Mg-->| Visit
> Your Group on the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto;_ylc=X3oDMTJjYjNzdGl1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1\
BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTA5\
NTM5NDI->
> 
Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN29sZWZzBF\
9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3\
MEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDk1Mzk0Mg-->|
>
Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMnJwYXY2BF9TAzk3\
MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0\
aW1lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->|
>
Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZnVvdW0wBF9TAz\
k3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3\
RpbWUDMTI1MDk1Mzk0Mg-->|
>
Links<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdm1jNms2BF9TAzk3\
MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0\
aW1lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->|
>
Database<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjdTRycHVoBF\
9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBH\
N0aW1lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->|
>
Polls<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNzZiZmxoBF9TAzk3\
MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0\
aW1lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->|
>
Calendar<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmhsYTQ0BF\
9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2NhbA\
RzdGltZQMxMjUwOTUzOTQy>
>  GenPhoto <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/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!
> Contact list owner: <http://www.city-gallery.com/contact/>
> http://www.city-gallery.com/contact/
>  MARKETPLACE
>  Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families,
> for the world and for each
other<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14krbvlv3/M=493064.12016295.13271503.10835568/\
D=groups/S=1705040837:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1250961142/L=/B=5GAHAEPDhCs-/J=1250953942\
625956/K=rX4TVUejQoWWO5QAoklXig/A=5697381/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.yahoo\
.com/group/mompowergroup/>
>   [image: Yahoo!
Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNHBjOGE1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAz\
E0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjUwOTUzOTQy>
> Change settings via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaHBzbXBmBF9TAzk3MzU\
5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1\
lAzEyNTA5NTM5NDI->(Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to
Individual<genphoto-normal@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Indiviual+Ema\
il>| Switch
> format to
Traditional<genphoto-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:\
+Traditional>
>  Visit Your Group
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genphoto;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbHFiN2l1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGd\
ycElkAzE0NzQ3MDEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDQwODM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjUwOTU\
zOTQy>| Yahoo!
> Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
> <genphoto-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>


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

Quoting Rhonda <rstarthistle@...>:

> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM, <genphoto@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>  I had a picture from the late 1800s to early 1900s that did weird things
>> on a scanner besides the fact that it was too big. I used my digital camera
>> and took a picture of it outside. I've found pics done that way seem to work
>> best in light shade although I've only done black and whites that way
>> including some WWII era.

Hmmm.  I hadn't considered that option.  I do have a copy stand here
too.  Thanks!

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
Division of Science and Math
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

So I've got a "normal" flat-bed scanner (i.e., no transparency lid/adaptor).

Has anybody ever tried scanning negatives by placing a mirror behind
them on the scanner glass?  How does that work?

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
Division of Science and Math
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

Susan,

We must be working on the same type of project.

I want to ask if anyone has used the PHOTOMAKER converter?  I have 100's of
slides from my Father and would love to have them so that I can easily share
them with other family member.

Also should they be saved as JPEG or TIFF.....I always get confused as to which
is best.

Linda

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, Susan Farmer <sfarmer@...> wrote:
>
> So I've got a "normal" flat-bed scanner (i.e., no transparency lid/adaptor).
>
> Has anybody ever tried scanning negatives by placing a mirror behind
> them on the scanner glass?  How does that work?
>
> Susan
> -----
> Susan Farmer
> sfarmer@...
> Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
> Division of Science and Math
> http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/
>

Quoting wrap_lady <lindad406@...>:

> Susan,
>
> We must be working on the same type of project.
>
> I want to ask if anyone has used the PHOTOMAKER converter?  I have
> 100's of slides from my Father and would love to have them so that I
>  can easily share them with other family member.
>
> Also should they be saved as JPEG or TIFF.....I always get confused
> as to which is best.
>

.tif -- and if you're editing pics -- save all intermediate steps as
.tif and convert at the end.  The .jpg format is one that assumes that
there are details that are too small for your eye to see and *it
throws them away* -- if you save a .jpg file enough times, the color
will shift, and it will look really crappy.

susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer@...
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
Division of Science and Math
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/

Linda,

I have understood that photos should be saved in a *tif format, as there are
less losses and better detail.  The photos are larger, but they do contain
detail information.  Scan them to the highest setting that is reasonable (I
usually use 300 dpi; I'd use larger, but the file size becpmes unwieldy).  Some
photos I scan as both *tif and *jpg, because *jpg is the accepted format for
posting on the internet.

Good luck,
Mary Lee

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "wrap_lady" <lindad406@...> wrote:
>
> Susan,
>
> We must be working on the same type of project.
>
> I want to ask if anyone has used the PHOTOMAKER converter?  I have 100's of
slides from my Father and would love to have them so that I can easily share
them with other family member.
>
> Also should they be saved as JPEG or TIFF.....I always get confused as to
which is best.
>
> Linda
>
> --- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, Susan Farmer <sfarmer@> wrote:
> >
> > So I've got a "normal" flat-bed scanner (i.e., no transparency lid/adaptor).
> >
> > Has anybody ever tried scanning negatives by placing a mirror behind
> > them on the scanner glass?  How does that work?
> >
> > Susan
> > -----
> > Susan Farmer
> > sfarmer@
> > Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
> > Division of Science and Math
> > http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/
> >
>

The TIFF format preserves the original image information completely
(unless you select JPEG compression within a TIFF container, a rare
but possible option). This format is widely used in graphic arts
studios, however, most archivists believe the JPEG format will be the
most future proof format, not because it is the best for preserving
image information, but because it is so ubiquitous. The software to
read and display JPEGs is universal, embedded into cameras, cell
phones and nearly every application, operating system or device can
read a JPEG image. The sheer numbers of images from digital cameras,
in the billions already, mostly in JPEG format, will require future
devices and software to be able to read them. The software for reading
TIFF is not as widely available, and given a change in the publishing
industry, could result in the format being orphaned. I think this is
unlikely, but in the long run, decades or the next hundred years, JPEG
has a much better probability of survival.

The JPEG compression is lossy, so some archivists have lamented that
important works may only be known in relatively poor (or the poorest)
quality due to being preserved only in JPEG format.

However, for most practical uses, a high resolution, low compression
JPEG of very large size (like those generated by digital SLRs at or
above 10 megapixels, give sufficient quality in JPEG most people would
not know the difference between a JPEG and a TIFF when viewed, and
very unlikely to tell the difference when printed out. This is due to
how pixels are translated into various patterns of dots by printing
devices.

Even a more compressed JPEG image of the quality produced by digital
cameras, if it is good enough resolution for a 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 image
ought to be a fairly good enough to preserve what a person looks like
for posterity. While I would love to preserve every detail of an
original photograph, if the person can be recognized, the image is
sufficient for family history.

I'd prefer to store every family image in the format that stores image
information without any loss or distortion (of color say), which would
be the camera raw image (proprietary, very unlikely to be widely
readable in even a few years) or a non-lossy format like TIFF. But
when you get into high resolution images, the loss does not matter as
much, and JPEG is going to be readable by a wider variety of devices
and software for much longer than any raw format.

Everyone has to make their own decision.

Steve

I have a collection of glass negatives I'd like to see.  I have no
knowledge in photography other than using a digital camera.  I do have a  simple
scanner.  Is there any way I can take a peek at these negatives  without
complicated equipment??

Thanks

Jerry


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

If your scanner does not have a negative/slide copy option, you can try
placing the glass negative, glass to glass, with a piece of white paper
on top. Then reverse the image with your software (negative or reverse
image). This is a poor copy but you should be able to identify the scene
and hopefully identify individuals. I used this method until I bought a
scanner with the slide/negative option.(Epson V500).
If you have a tripod for your digital camera, you could also prop the
glass negative against a window, with a non-distracting view, and take a
picture of it. Fill the screen as best you can. You will need a tripod
because the exposure will be long. Use your software to reverse the
image to a positive one.
Neither is an archival method of working with your treasures, but it
will be easier to see what you have and not too expensive.
Good luck
Evan


JerryABarb@... wrote:
>
> I have a collection of glass negatives I'd like to see. I have no
> knowledge in photography other than using a digital camera. I do have
> a simple
> scanner. Is there any way I can take a peek at these negatives without
> complicated equipment??
>
> Thanks
>
> Jerry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

E


In a message dated 2/9/2010 12:59:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
crow39@... writes:

If your  scanner does not have a negative/slide copy option, you can try
placing  the glass negative, glass to glass, with a piece of white paper
on top.  Then reverse the image with your software (negative or reverse
image).  This is a poor copy but you should be able to identify the scene
and  hopefully identify individuals. I used this method until I bought a
scanner with the slide/negative option.(Epson V500).
If you have a  tripod for your digital camera, you could also prop the
glass negative  against a window, with a non-distracting view, and take a
picture of it.  Fill the screen as best you can. You will need a tripod
because the  exposure will be long. Use your software to reverse the
image to a  positive one.
Neither is an archival method of working with your treasures,  but it
will be easier to see what you have and not too expensive.
Good  luck
Evan


JerryABarb@... wrote:
>
> I have a  collection of glass negatives I'd like to see. I have no
> knowledge in  photography other than using a digital camera. I do have
> a  simple
> scanner. Is there any way I can take a peek at these negatives  without
> complicated equipment??
>
> Thanks
>
>  Jerry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
>


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

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!
Contact list owner:  http://www.city-gallery.com/contact/
Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Evan, thank you so much for a practical solution that I can  understand.  I
will try both!

Jerry


In a message dated 2/9/2010 12:59:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
crow39@... writes:

If your  scanner does not have a negative/slide copy option, you can try
placing  the glass negative, glass to glass, with a piece of white paper
on top.  Then reverse the image with your software (negative or reverse
image).  This is a poor copy but you should be able to identify the scene
and  hopefully identify individuals. I used this method until I bought a
scanner with the slide/negative option.(Epson V500).
If you have a  tripod for your digital camera, you could also prop the
glass negative  against a window, with a non-distracting view, and take a
picture of it.  Fill the screen as best you can. You will need a tripod
because the  exposure will be long. Use your software to reverse the
image to a  positive one.
Neither is an archival method of working with your treasures,  but it
will be easier to see what you have and not too expensive.
Good  luck
Evan


JerryABarb@... wrote:
>
> I have a  collection of glass negatives I'd like to see. I have no
> knowledge in  photography other than using a digital camera. I do have
> a  simple
> scanner. Is there any way I can take a peek at these negatives  without
> complicated equipment??
>
> Thanks
>
>  Jerry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
>


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

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!
Contact list owner:  http://www.city-gallery.com/contact/
Yahoo! Groups Links






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

If you have a light box, like the ones used for viewing slides, and it
is large enough, you can lay the glass negative on the box then
photograph it using a digital camera. I feel a digital camera can be
better than a scanner with a slide adapter unless it is very good
quality. Set the camera up on a tripod. If the tripod has the ability
to reach out sideways, and hold the camera upside down, you should be
able to photograph the negative on the light box. Otherwise, what I do
is reverse the tripod so the head hangs down and then turn the head so
the camera can look straight down, place the legs over the light box.

You can buy light boxes inexpensively. You do not need the expensive
ones used by professionals. A 5 x 7 light box is $89 from B&H photo,
but I've seen them on sale for as low as $49.

I have a light box I made in the 70s for contact printing, from an old
photostat copier, but that would be pretty hard to find these days. It
has an array of little flashlight type bulbs and a milky sheet of
plexiglass as a diffuser. It gives very even lighting, much better
than traditional contact printers using a single light bulb and
frosted glass.

You can also try photographing the negatives against any diffuse light
source, such as in front of a white lampshade. I suppose you might try
making your own light box. You could take a card board box, cut a hole
in the top, fit it with some kind of diffuser material, like the top
of a tupperware box, lampshade material, a white sheet and put a light
bulb in through the side. Just make sure the box is rigid enough to
support the glass. You don't want to lose your previous negatives.

Steve

Steve Knoblock, Lead Developer, Folkstreams, Inc.
http://folkstreams.net -- Films about American roots culture.
Co-founder http://farmfoody.org -- Connecting you to farm and garden.
Personal http://www.facebook.com/steve.knoblock

I have copied hundreds of large format negatives and glass plate
negatives, and have always used the light box with camera and tripod
to make the digital file, which is then followed by reversal in
Photoshop.

Larry Keddy
LARK PhotoGraphic Services
New MInas, NS, Canada



On 10-Feb-10, at 3:37 PM, Steve Knoblock wrote:

> If you have a light box, l....................

I've received several suggestions for viewng my glass negatives, and plan
to try them all.  Many thanks for the easy to understand, non-technical
suggestions.  I think I can even do it!  Thanks  again.    Jerry


In a message dated 2/10/2010 10:42:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
larkeddy@... writes:




I have copied hundreds of large format negatives and glass plate
negatives, and have always used the light box with camera and tripod
to make the digital file, which is then followed by reversal in
Photoshop.

Larry Keddy
LARK PhotoGraphic Services
New MInas,  NS, Canada

On 10-Feb-10, at 3:37 PM, Steve Knoblock wrote:

>  If you have a light box, l...........  If y




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

sorry, folks, a spammer got through but has been removed. This is such a clean
group thanks to the membership approval process.

back to work....

Hello All:
I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the first time.
I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd opened fine. For the RAW
shots a message came back "Wrong Format and the files would not open."

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

Not sure if you have already received an answer about this or not.  when I
shoot RAW with my olympus SDLR e-volt I have to open the photo's shot in Raw
format with the Olympus photo editing program as that is the only program on my
computer that will read them.  I'm sure that photo's shot with a Nikon camera
in their Raw format would need to be opened with in a program provided by
Nikon. 
 
Gwen Hopkins

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:


From: HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...>
Subject: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM


 




Hello All:
I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the first time.
I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd opened fine. For the RAW
shots a message came back "Wrong Format and the files would not open."

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











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

You need a program with the capability to interpret the Nikon RAW file
but, although the program may need to be written including code
provided by Nikon to do it, many programs will read Nikon RAW files.
Just some that will (these versions and later, although some older
versions may not) include:

Adobe Photoshop CS3
Adobe Elements v3.0
Apple Preview v4.2
Apple iPhoto '09
Picturesque v2.1.3

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


On May 19, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Gwen Hopkins wrote:

> Not sure if you have already received an answer about this or not.
> when I shoot RAW with my olympus SDLR e-volt I have to open the
> photo's shot in Raw format with the Olympus photo editing program as
> that is the only program on my computer that will read them.  I'm
> sure that photo's shot with a Nikon camera in their Raw format would
> need to be opened with in a program provided by Nikon.
>
> Gwen Hopkins
>
> --- On Sun, 5/9/10, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...>
> Subject: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
> To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM
>
>
> Hello All:
> I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the
> first time. I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd
> opened fine. For the RAW shots a message came back "Wrong Format and
> the files would not open."
>

Thanks Gwen.
I hadn't heard this before. I've been shooting digital for a long time and just
trying to get started  with the RAW format. I heard that Photo Shop 8 will open
the Nikon photos.
I think you are right, I should get Nikon Capture. To bad there is not a program
that will read RAW files from all cameras.
Take care,
Harry
PS I like your e-mail handle.
--- On Tue, 5/18/10, Gwen Hopkins <ldytramp@...> wrote:


From: Gwen Hopkins <ldytramp@...>
Subject: Re: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 9:37 PM


 



Not sure if you have already received an answer about this or not.  when I
shoot RAW with my olympus SDLR e-volt I have to open the photo's shot in Raw
format with the Olympus photo editing program as that is the only program on my
computer that will read them.  I'm sure that photo's shot with a Nikon camera
in their Raw format would need to be opened with in a program provided by
Nikon. 
 
Gwen Hopkins

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:

From: HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...>
Subject: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM

 

Hello All:
I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the first time.
I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd opened fine. For the RAW
shots a message came back "Wrong Format and the files would not open."

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

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








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

Mike:
Thanks for your reply and information photoshop and others. Another person
also responded.
Harry

--- On Wed, 5/19/10, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@...> wrote:


From: Michael Stupinski <stupnski@...>
Subject: Re: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 4:35 AM


 



You need a program with the capability to interpret the Nikon RAW file
but, although the program may need to be written including code
provided by Nikon to do it, many programs will read Nikon RAW files.
Just some that will (these versions and later, although some older
versions may not) include:

Adobe Photoshop CS3
Adobe Elements v3.0
Apple Preview v4.2
Apple iPhoto '09
Picturesque v2.1.3

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

On May 19, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Gwen Hopkins wrote:

> Not sure if you have already received an answer about this or not.
> when I shoot RAW with my olympus SDLR e-volt I have to open the
> photo's shot in Raw format with the Olympus photo editing program as
> that is the only program on my computer that will read them. I'm
> sure that photo's shot with a Nikon camera in their Raw format would
> need to be opened with in a program provided by Nikon.
>
> Gwen Hopkins
>
> --- On Sun, 5/9/10, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...>
> Subject: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
> To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM
>
>
> Hello All:
> I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the
> first time. I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd
> opened fine. For the RAW shots a message came back "Wrong Format and
> the files would not open."
>








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

You should take a look at 'IRFANVIEW' a free program and set of plug-ins that
allow opening many formats including RAW.  You can find it at www.irfanview.com
or by using any decent search engine.

I have no affiliation with this program except as a satisfied user.

John Zillwood
Chilliwack, BC, Canada

--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:
>
> Mike:
> Thanks for your reply and information photoshop and others. Another person
also responded.
> Harry
>
> --- On Wed, 5/19/10, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Michael Stupinski <stupnski@...>
> Subject: Re: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
> To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 4:35 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> You need a program with the capability to interpret the Nikon RAW file
> but, although the program may need to be written including code
> provided by Nikon to do it, many programs will read Nikon RAW files.
> Just some that will (these versions and later, although some older
> versions may not) include:
>
> Adobe Photoshop CS3
> Adobe Elements v3.0
> Apple Preview v4.2
> Apple iPhoto '09
> Picturesque v2.1.3
>
> .............Mike
>
> On May 19, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Gwen Hopkins wrote:
>
> > Not sure if you have already received an answer about this or not.
> > when I shoot RAW with my olympus SDLR e-volt I have to open the
> > photo's shot in Raw format with the Olympus photo editing program as
> > that is the only program on my computer that will read them. I'm
> > sure that photo's shot with a Nikon camera in their Raw format would
> > need to be opened with in a program provided by Nikon.
> >
> > Gwen Hopkins
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/9/10, HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: HDM SHORT <hdmshort@...>
> > Subject: [genphoto] Shoot Raw
> > To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM
> >
> >
> > Hello All:
> > I just shot some photos in the Raw format with my Nikon D-90 for the
> > first time. I set the camera at NEF RAW + JPEG Fine. The JPEG'd
> > opened fine. For the RAW shots a message came back "Wrong Format and
> > the files would not open."
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi:
Looking for help again. I can't find any instructions on getting Goolgle air
photos of building sites or home construction sites  I work on. Are any
publicationms out there that can help me?
Thanks ,
Harry

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

I'd like to add to this - I scan at a very high resolution for purposes of
archiving the photo. The higher the res, the smoother the effects of edits in
Photoshop, for one thing. It's also a way to "preserve" the photo at its current
state, in case of loss/damage and also because the photo may degrade over time.
Some of my scans are 400mb and large in size. CDs/DVDs are cheap these days, so
backing up these scans is not an expensive proposition.

I do not let my scanner do any "correction" of the image - I want a "flat" scan,
so that I can make the editing decisions in Photoshop. Some scanning software
may well be capable of great correction at the time of scan, but scanning
without any corrections also yields a "raw" scan for archival purposes. Scanning
is best, because it can pick up amazing detail that still lies in the emulsion
layers of a photo. I have pulled an incredible amount of detail out of a photo
that appeared very faded, in which the people were barely visible.

There is no way to know what capabilities future versions of editing software
will have - it will definitely be possible to edit scans much more easily and
automatically than we can today. And, for instance, replace missing portions of
a scan - just look at Photoshop CS5's new feature that can do just this.

Also, always scan the back of the photo if there is any writing on it, as it
preserves an ancestor's handwriting and original ID - even if you know it is
incorrect. You can always include updated info with the photo.

I save as TIFF, since JPG experiences some degree of "loss of data" each time a
photo is opened and re-saved. I also don't know what algorithms my scanner uses
to "create" a JPG file format, and would prefer to do it myself in Photoshop, so
I can choose the settings. I think we should stay away from JPEG-2000, as I
understand from Adobe that it never really caught on.

I always work on a COPY of the original scan - I reduce the file size and save
as JPG only when I'm ready to post a photo online, or send in an email, or
upload to a photo lab's site for printing. I store my CDs/DVDs in a safe place
and duplicates of each offsite. Cloud computing / storage areas such as MOZY are
another thought.

Regarding the issues of future format compatibility, if the day comes that the
TIFF file format (or for that matter, CDs and DVDs) begins to be replaced by
newer technologies, I will have to convert my archives to the newer
format/media. I'm confident that when this "change" begins, photo application
software will open TIFF images for long enough that we have time to work on this
conversion. Software such as GraphicConverter is bound to keep old file format
compatibility around for a long time. You can also always punt to an older
version of software to handle file formats that a brand-new computer/software
may not recognize. Don't think all is lost, and discard a file that may be your
only scan of an old image, just because a new program doesn't recognize it. I
imagine online services will also pop up over time, to handle file conversions
for situations like this.

And don't forget to always handle an original photo wearing thin cotton gloves -
you don't want to get fingerprints and body oils on a photograph. Always store
the photos in acid-free materials. I discovered that acid-free postcard sleeves
of various sizes are much less expensive (when bought in bulk on eBay) than
sleeve protectors, and they allow me to handle the photo more easily and store
the photos in a system that makes sense to me, based on my genealogy filing
scheme. Large index card boxes are great for storing photos up to 6 x 8 in size.
Acid-free boxes are best, I just haven't invested in them yet.

My 2-cents ~)
Deb Koons




--- In genphoto@yahoogroups.com, "mlmoeny" <mlmoenyinnm@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Linda,
>
> I have understood that photos should be saved in a *tif format, as there are
less losses and better detail.  The photos are larger, but they do contain
detail information.  Scan them to the highest setting that is reasonable (I
usually use 300 dpi; I'd use larger, but the file size becpmes unwieldy).  Some
photos I scan as both *tif and *jpg, because *jpg is the accepted format for
posting on the internet.
>
> Good luck,
> Mary Lee

For some reason, my reply to a message from a member failed - but this is
good info for discussion, so I thought I'd forward it back to the group.



---------- Forwarded message ----------


T R - I would never use JPG for anything except as a "saved as" file for
web/email/Facebook. The TIFF format never loses any data, so why not just
use it? Storage is CHEAP these days. I also always shoot in RAW for that
reason. And I always scan at a very high resolution, up to 3200 at 100%, as
the results/effects of tonal and color correction work can be smoother the
more data Photoshop has to work with, depending on the color space you are
in. It's also always better to scan at a higher res than you need and res
down in Photoshop, rather than using its interpolation to res up. There are
some third-party apps out there for res'ing up that are supposed to be
excellent, but I wouldn't want to use them unless I had no alternative.

I am looking at Epson's V-750M for slides & negatives, as it allows for
fluid-mounting. Just not sure I will gain that much with the old 4x5 family
negatives. For my 35mm more current negatives, will have to at some point
evaluate getting a dedicated film scanner. It may be that the V-750M does a
good enough job, since I am more primarily concerned with archiving the OLD
family photos and any negatives we have are 4x5 or larger and fluid-mounting
those should produce as good an image as possible. The V-750M also has a
very large Dmax. I may use VueScan with it, if I see that it does a better
job with shadow area detail. I have done some testing at work, on a V-700,
and it seems like it does.

Photoshop also has filters to correct for the cross-hatching and moire
that happens when scanning printed pieces, as does the Epson software.
I am on a Mac, and have had the best luck with Epson scanners, so I
haven't looked at Microtek in a long time. It's good to hear that they
have good products and scanning software.

Do you primarily scan old photos at this point, and documents/newspaper
clippings? I am still working my way through a huge treasure trove of old
family pictures (hundreds back to 1880s) and haven't tackled the
negatives/slides
yet. I also have countless old letters and documents and newspaper
clippings/articles. Trying to get a sense of the best way to organize
everything, planning to share on DVD with any interested family members once
I can create a finding aid/index of everything (probably spreadsheets saved
as PDF with thumbnail images, posted online).

It's mind-boggling, how much I have to do! And that doesn't even take into
account all the heirloom keepsakes I have. Have started photographing them
and entering the info and original owner info and stories that I know. Plus
I have interviews with relatives on cassette tape and hi8 tape and luckily
newer camcorders with .mov format.

Take care - Deb

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

T R to me
show details 8:34 PM (15 hours ago)
For Slides and negatives you have to have a scanner with a TMA for the best
results. Personally I like Microtek scanners with the scan wizard program
this program also corrects for screens if you are archiving newspaper /
periodical material. Also 300 resolution should be the lowest res you should
use and depending how small of picture... 8x10 should be fine for 300 res
otherwise I would set a bit higher res. and bump the percentage amount to
make tiny picture larger and clearer. for enlargement sake! you can always
adjust it in PS after the initial scan for your needs. . tif is best however
for storage if it is not going to be opened often .jpg should be fine.

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

Original post from June, regarding formats to use in scanning:

---
I'd like to add to this - I scan at a very high resolution for purposes of
archiving the photo. The higher the res, the smoother the effects of edits
in Photoshop, for one thing. It's also a way to "preserve" the photo at its
current state, in case of loss/damage and also because the photo may degrade
over time. Some of my scans are 400mb and large in size. CDs/DVDs are cheap
these days, so backing up these scans is not an expensive proposition.

I do not let my scanner do any "correction" of the image - I want a "flat"
scan, so that I can make the editing decisions in Photoshop. Some scanning
software may well be capable of great correction at the time of scan, but
scanning without any corrections also yields a "raw" scan for archival
purposes. Scanning is best, because it can pick up amazing detail that still
lies in the emulsion layers of a photo. I have pulled an incredible amount
of detail out of a photo that appeared very faded, in which the people were
barely visible.

There is no way to know what capabilities future versions of editing
software will have - it will definitely be possible to edit scans much more
easily and automatically than we can today. And, for instance, replace
missing portions of a scan - just look at Photoshop CS5's new feature that
can do just this.

Also, always scan the back of the photo if there is any writing on it, as it
preserves an ancestor's handwriting and original ID - even if you know it is
incorrect. You can always include updated info with the photo.

I save as TIFF, since JPG experiences some degree of "loss of data" each
time a photo is opened and re-saved. I also don't know what algorithms my
scanner uses to "create" a JPG file format, and would prefer to do it myself
in Photoshop, so I can choose the settings. I think we should stay away from
JPEG-2000, as I understand from Adobe that it never really caught on.

I always work on a COPY of the original scan - I reduce the file size and
save as JPG only when I'm ready to post a photo online, or send in an email,
or upload to a photo lab's site for printing. I store my CDs/DVDs in a safe
place and duplicates of each offsite. Cloud computing / storage areas such
as MOZY are another thought.

Regarding the issues of future format compatibility, if the day comes that
the TIFF file format (or for that matter, CDs and DVDs) begins to be
replaced by newer technologies, I will have to convert my archives to the
newer format/media. I'm confident that when this "change" begins, photo
application software will open TIFF images for long enough that we have time
to work on this conversion. Software such as GraphicConverter is bound to
keep old file format compatibility around for a long time. You can also
always punt to an older version of software to handle file formats that a
brand-new computer/software may not recognize. Don't think all is lost, and
discard a file that may be your only scan of an old image, just because a
new program doesn't recognize it. I imagine online services will also pop up
over time, to handle file conversions for situations like this.

And don't forget to always handle an original photo wearing thin cotton
gloves - you don't want to get fingerprints and body oils on a photograph.
Always store the photos in acid-free materials. I discovered that acid-free
postcard sleeves of various sizes are much less expensive (when bought in
bulk on eBay) than sleeve protectors, and they allow me to handle the photo
more easily and store the photos in a system that makes sense to me, based
on my genealogy filing scheme. Large index card boxes are great for storing
photos up to 6 x 8 in size. Acid-free boxes are best, I just haven't
invested in them yet.

My 2-cents ~)
Deb Koons
---


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

Thought some of you might be interested in this close up look of a Louis
Daguerre Daguerreotype taken in 1838.

http://www.hokumburg.com/2010/10/squail-of-day-september-8-th-2010-first.html

Danielle
www.sailorsravinestudio.blogspot.com