> Forget all the nonsense about scanning and the kludgy efforts to do so. It
> will look like crap. Get real optical RA-4 color prints made from the
> negs. Scan the prints on a flatbed if you must but at least get real
> (optical / RA4) prints made. Otherwise, the quality will never be there,
> short of a drum scan.
I absolutely agree! Have glossy prints made, though.
It is probably Kodak Portra 400 film. This film produced very nice
skintones, but usually needed to be overexposed a tiny bit. that would
help bring skintones up and provide good background separation, what
it means is that the negatives are a little more dense in the
highlights than what most scanners or digitizing processes can deal
with. Skintones will all turn Pepto-Bismo pink as a result. If he was
an old-timer, he was likely still shooting it like he shot Vericolor,
and derated the film by up to a full stop.
If you do decide to digitize them yourself, do it with a good scanner
with transparancy adaptor. But I think you are much better served if
you have a lab process them to small prints and even have them do the
scanning themselves.
I really doubt that the photographer would have taken all that many
pictures. Most of us in that era topped out at 10 rolls of film.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|