 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / January 2006Glass Plates
This might be in the wrong forum, but I'm hoping I can get some advice. I just inherited my grandfather's 4x5 glass plates he made in the late 1800s to early 1900s and I do not know how to clean them. They are not that bad, and was wondering whether digital ice works, if some particulate matter cannot be dusted off. Also, what resolution is good for archiving....600dpi? Thanks, Scott Chapin > This might be in the wrong forum, but I'm hoping I can get some advice. I > just inherited my grandfather's 4x5 glass plates he made in the late 1800s [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott Chapin Before making _any_ attempt to clean them, I would print them as is, just in case. You might want to consider printing them, putting the original negs away in a safe place, and working with the prints. Contact a musuem or Kodak to find out proper ways to clean them.  SignatureKen Hart kwhart@aec.nu > This might be in the wrong forum, but I'm hoping I can get some advice. I > just inherited my grandfather's 4x5 glass plates he made in the late 1800s [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Also, what resolution is good for archiving....600dpi? Digital ICE won't work, probably, since they're probably silver-based chemistry. I'd recommend just scanning them without cleaning (other than removing the loose dust) and cloning out the worst by hand if you want to make a nice print. I'd strongly recommend not trying to clean them. I'd also recommend 1200 ppi. That's a 4x enlargement (almost 16x20), and some of the images will probably be able to support that. The Epson 4990 should make nice 1200 ppi scans. (You might try scanning at 2400 ppi and downsampling: that sometimes does better than using the scanner/scanner driver to get the lower resolution.) You might think that's a lot of data, 30MB per plate (8-bit monochrome tiffs), but even as tiffs that's 20 plates per CD-R, so it's livable, I'd think. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Thanks Ken and David, No, I won't be cleaning them, that's why I was looking to see whether Digital ICE would do the trick. Unless you feel a carefull dusting with a large soft makeup brush would be bad, that is the extent to which I would go. 1200dpi doesn't spound bad, but I think at 2400 dpi, it takes forever on my 2.25GHz machine with 1GB RAM. I would have to find a lab that could print them, as I don't have a darkroom, and that could be hard to do? Thanks, Scott Chapin > Thanks Ken and David, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott Chapin The 4x5 size negs could be "contact printed" very easily, even without an actual darkroom, but with just a dark room (note the space). Lay a piece of photo paper face up on a flat surface, lay a (glass plate) negative emulsion side (dull side) down on the photo paper, turn the room light on for maybe 2-10 seconds (depending on the brightness of the light and the type of photo paper you get). Develope as usual. You will have a have a photographic positive the same size as the negative. You might want to pay some attention to carefully centering the negative on the paper, because you will get a black border around the image. Some people think a black border is really classy! To print these negs yourself, you will need the following: (1) a room that can be made dark, (2) photo paper, perhaps Kodak Polycontast in 5x7 size, (3) developer, perhaps Kodak Dektol, (4) stop bath (Kodak Indicator Stop Bath) or a water rinse, (5) fixer, (6) 3 trays/non-metal pans at least 5x7x1"deep in size, (7) optional, a 7watt red light bulb so you can see what you are doing. SignatureKen Hart kwhart@aec.nu <SNIP> > To print these negs yourself, you will need the following: (1) a room that > can be made dark, (2) photo paper, perhaps Kodak Polycontast in 5x7 size, > (3) developer, perhaps Kodak Dektol, (4) stop bath (Kodak Indicator Stop > Bath) or a water rinse, (5) fixer, (6) 3 trays/non-metal pans at least > 5x7x1"deep in size, (7) optional, a 7watt red light bulb so you can see what > you are doing. I left all that stuff at my mom's house! My attic could be made dark easily, just no running water there. After non destructive attempts at scanning, I should try that. I don't know wether the enlarger can handle 4x5s, but as you say, I could do a contact print. > You might think that's a lot of data, 30MB per plate (8-bit monochrome > tiffs), but even as tiffs that's 20 plates per CD-R, so it's livable, I'd > think. For archival purposes? Scan them in full colour! The images on the plates may be monochrome, the plates themselves are not. So if you want to scan them and preserve the most information, scan them with all discolourations, dirt, etc. Just make sure you do not add to it during the scanning process. Scan them at as high a resolution as you can too. Megabytes are extremely cheap. So what if you can only fit one or two scans on a single CD??? And when you have a particular thing in mind to do with an image, scale to your needs. <SNIP> > Scan them in full colour! OK, you've got me going here. You would, or wouldn't invert them as you scan? What would be the purpose, if monochrome would be the only final output? Scott Chapin > OK, you've got me going here. You would, or wouldn't invert them as you > scan? What would be the purpose, if monochrome would be the only final > output? The purpose would be to first preserve the plates themselves, beit in a digital image file. Plates may break. Once they are properly scanned, you still have a record of the plate. Of all of the plate. Alterations, restorations can always be undertaken. But unless you keep the 'original', the 'mother copy' as near to the original as possible, only once. Scan, for instance, the plates in monochrome, and you instantly lose a lot of what is in the original. And it will be lost forever if the plate ever is lost. And just because you want to keep filesize down? Yes, scanning takes a lot of time. So spend that time wisely: do it right the first time, even though it may take even longer. If you do, you will never have to do it again. Nor fear the loss of opportunity to do it ever again. If you want to use the info recorded on the plates, you can always convert a copy to monochrome, remove dust, scale to whatever size you like, airbrush out great aunt Milly, restore cracks, 'clone in' your favourite motor car and colour it pink, and what not. >> You might think that's a lot of data, 30MB per plate (8-bit monochrome >> tiffs), but even as tiffs that's 20 plates per CD-R, so it's livable, I'd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Scan them in full colour! The images on the plates may be monochrome, the > plates themselves are not. Good point. That might make it easier to differentiate stains from image in later clean-up attempts. > So if you want to scan them and preserve the most information, scan them > with all discolourations, dirt, etc. Just make sure you do not add to it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scans > on a single CD??? Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's 6 bytes per pixel. That's 180 MB, so you can get at least three if not four onto a 720MB CD. Even that's not bad. Scanning at 2400 ppi would be four times the data, or 720 MB. Since you need twice that plus change in RAM to deal with large files, a 1 GB machine will be painful, but 2GB would be enough. Another thing to consider would be 16-bit monochrome 2400 ppi scans. The nominally 4800 ppi flatbed scanners are beginning to run out of steam at 2400 ppi, and your originals may not have that much information on them. But it's worth trying on at least one to see what you get. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's 6 > bytes per pixel. That's 180 MB, so you can get at least three if not four > onto a 720MB CD. Even that's not bad. Is it a good time to point out that DVD burners and media, unless you go for dual layer media, are inexpensive nowadays? Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's 6 >> bytes per pixel. That's 180 MB, so you can get at least three if not four [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for > dual layer media, are inexpensive nowadays? I thought someone would say that<g>. Only if you are less of a wimp than I: CD-R is a relatively mature technology (that really looks like it's going to be readable for a long time) but the number of DVD formats is large enough that some of them may disappear. Or may not be readable on some other drive. It looks like a real zoo to me. I'm waiting until I hear a lot of people saying that the situation has stabilized. That said, scanning is such a slow process that backing up all my MF scans on CD-R was simply not a problem. But now that I'm shooting more digital, the hard disk is filling up and CD-R really isn't adequate. Digital is doubly insidious because you have to archive the RAW files but I'd also like to archive the files that I convert. But I convert to 16-bit tiffs and work on those to produce jpegs for printing. So each image involves two enormous and a few smaller files. Aaaaaaaaarg. Time to go back to film. Or become more ruthless about deleting things. (Snide comments about the deletability of my images will not be argued with.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Only if you are less of a wimp than I: CD-R is a relatively mature > technology (that really looks like it's going to be readable for a long > time) but the number of DVD formats is large enough that some of them may > disappear. Or may not be readable on some other drive. It looks like a > real zoo to me. I'm waiting until I hear a lot of people saying that the > situation has stabilized. DVD is mature now. Basically nobody won the format wars and all commonly available drives support all major formats, both readers and burners. e.g. http://www.dabs.com/ProductList.aspx?&NavigationKey=50837&SearchType=1&SearchTer ms=dvd&PageMode=3&SearchKey=All&SearchMode=All I beleive that you are most likely to run into problems if you go for DVD-RAM or use very old and expensive DVD drives. Yes, there is talk of Blue ray and a rival to this but this is like saying a few years back that CD-R is not mature because DVD+-R drives are being developed. Personally I have gone down the route of having a very large hard drive (250 Gig) and backup to an equally large drive in a USB caddy. That way drive failure should not be a problem. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >Personally I have gone down the route of having a very large hard drive (250 >Gig) and backup to an equally large drive in a USB caddy. That way drive >failure should not be a problem. Me too. I have three hard drives and room for four more. Personally I think CD-r's and DVD's suck for backup not to mention I've had a few old ones that were unreadable. >>> Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's >>> 6 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan I have switched over fully to DVD, CDs are far to small to be of much use to me. Over all I like the idea of DVDs better then CDs since the dye layer is buried deeper in the plastic. Most of the DVD drives seem to be able to handle both the DVD -R and the DVD +R without problems, some of the DVD video players will only handle one of the two formats. CDs really are not making much sense anymore since their cost per GB is close to what an external hard drive is, DVDs are still much cheaper per GB then an either and external or internal drive. I have not gone over 1GB for a photo yet but I Have gotten above 900 MB a number of times, for the PSD files. I did a plot of the storage I use for photos from 1998 through 2005, I have been just about tripling the storage used each year from the year before. In 1998 I used up 89 MP of space, 2005 it was over 170 GB, for 2006 I expect to slow my growth some and use about 300 - 400 GB. Whereas this seems like a lot 400 GB can be backed up onto DVD for about $20. Scott > > Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's 6 > > bytes per pixel. That's 180 MB, so you can get at least three if not four [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pete Yep, and maybe the format has become more compatible cross platforms, but many of us would have to upgrade computers again. If you need more than twice the RAM to scan and save a picture, then you would need a computer with more than 9GB RAM to crate a 4.37GB picture file! Not to mention horrendously long scan times. Is a dual Opteron in order? Can a scanner keep up with it, if I had them? Scott Chapin > Yep, and maybe the format has become more compatible cross platforms, but > many of us would have to upgrade computers again. If you need more than > twice the RAM to scan and save a picture, then you would need a computer > with more than 9GB RAM to crate a 4.37GB picture file! RAM? OGACS! (One Gigabyte And Constantly Swapping). With 200+ Gigabyte hard disks, swapspace abounds. <SNIP> > RAM? > OGACS! (One Gigabyte And Constantly Swapping). With 200+ Gigabyte hard > disks, swapspace abounds. Yeah, but isn't that slooooooow? Especially versus what is gained in file size? > Yeah, but isn't that slooooooow? Especially versus what is gained in file > size? Yes. That is slow. But the best things take (and last) longest, right? ;-) Well, I'm not adverse to taking the time, but isn't there a point at which increased file sizes does nothing to enhance realistic uses of the negative? BTW...if I can't find any text in the photos, how do I know which side of the plate should rest on the scanner's glass? Should the emulsion side face down? Thanks, Scott Chapin > Well, I'm not adverse to taking the time, but isn't there a point at > which increased file sizes does nothing to enhance realistic uses of > the negative? Well, a 1200 dpi scan will only allow a decent 4x print. 2400 dpi only 8x. That's not too much, really. If anything, not quite enough. And i would definitely scan full colour. > BTW...if I can't find any text in the photos, how do I know which side > of the plate should rest on the scanner's glass? Should the emulsion > side face down? Yes, and a-sort-of yes. When viewing, the emulsion side should be down, or else the image will be reversed. When scanning, it's better not to have to scan through the glass plate, and the emulsion should be down, facing the scan element.. The scanned image will than be reversed. But it's easy to flip the image. Most scanning software does it on-the-fly, if you tell it to. > Yep, and maybe the format has become more compatible cross platforms, but > many of us would have to upgrade computers again. If you need more than > twice the RAM to scan and save a picture, then you would need a computer > with more than 9GB RAM to crate a 4.37GB picture file! I was not suggesting 4GB picture files. Rather than you can store more very large images per DVD than CD. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk <SNIP> > I was not suggesting 4GB picture files. Rather than you can store more very > large images per DVD than CD. Yeah, I knew you were, but I like to store by job on a CD. If you fit a great many photos on a single DVD, doesn't that make indexing your jobs a little harder? You know, trying to figure which job is on which disk? > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > great many photos on a single DVD, doesn't that make indexing your jobs a > little harder? You know, trying to figure which job is on which disk? Well, I shoot weddings (admittedly, only three or four a year), and a typical "job" spans 5 CDs, or just one DVD. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com <SNIP> > Well, I shoot weddings (admittedly, only three or four a year), and a > typical "job" spans 5 CDs, or just one DVD. Well yes, I just don't encounter that. I have not shot a digital wedding yet....too leary of it. At that, I only shoot around 144 photos typically, an as JPEGs, they would probably fit on one CD. But I can see the need to put some jobs on a DVD, though not the norm for me. Scott Chapin > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott Chapin A lot of it has to do with the variations of the images. There's the untouched originals, there's the touched up originals, there's the touched up originals I sent to the printer, there's the touched up originals saved to email size, and there's the video slide show made from the touched up images and the first dance song. Yes, there's some redundancy in there, but each set is in its own folder, and it's easy to just include them all. And truth be told, not enough people have dvd players in their computers yet, so I deliver the files to them on multiple CDs, but when I back it up for myself it goes straight to DVD! SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com <SNIP> > A lot of it has to do with the variations of the images. There's the > untouched originals, there's the touched up originals, there's the touched [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I deliver the files to them on multiple CDs, but when I back it up for > myself it goes straight to DVD! OK! I can see me going down that road when I start shooting weddings in digital. Maybe the D200, when I get it, will give me that confidence. The D100 just isn't there for me, as good as it is. Scott Chapin > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Scott Chapin I just use the digital for the pj work, and then it's just good enough, by my standards. Formals are shot, currently, with a Rollei 6008i. The greatest benefit of digital to my workflow is the ability to change ISO on the fly, so I can mix natural light and flash shots without carrying two bodies. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com <SNIP> > I just use the digital for the pj work, and then it's just good enough, by > my standards. Formals are shot, currently, with a Rollei 6008i. > The greatest benefit of digital to my workflow is the ability to change ISO > on the fly, so I can mix natural light and flash shots without carrying two > bodies. Yep, I can see that. I use my Hassy 501CM for the real formal shots and F100 for the pj stuff, but want to move to digital there. I'm just starting to get confident with nailing the exposure in digital which of course really depends on good WB for acceptable results. >><SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I deliver the files to them on multiple CDs, but when I back it up for > myself it goes straight to DVD! Is this all deliverables to the customer on disk? I'd think you'd keep the originals, etc for future orders, with just the email size & video slide show on CD. I mean, it's not common for wedding photographers to give the bride the negatives ... > >><SNIP> > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I mean, it's not common for wedding photographers to give the bride the > negatives ... It is now a days. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I was not suggesting 4GB picture files. Why not? >> I was not suggesting 4GB picture files. > > Why not? Well, 4.7GB is 5046586573 bytes. Assuming scanning in 4 colours, red, green and blue and IR for dust that is 1261646643.2 bytes for each colour. Divide this by 2 assuming 16 bits per colour per pixel. 630823321.6 Assume for convenience we are scanning a square neg, that gives 25116 pixels per side. Say the image is 8 in square that equates to 3139 pixels per inch. OK, so it is not completely impossible that you could do that if you really wanted but it seems a bit OTT. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >>Lets see. 1200 x 4 x 1200 x 5 = 30MP, at 16-bits times 3 colors, that's 6 >>bytes per pixel. That's 180 MB, so you can get at least three if not four [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pete Dual layer's dropping in price too. > Dual layer's dropping in price too. I'll have to look again, in the high street it is dear. My dual layer burner costs less than 20 dual layer disks to put in it. Not that I'm complaining, its only a matter of time before they get cheep. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > This might be in the wrong forum, but I'm hoping I can get some advice. I > just inherited my grandfather's 4x5 glass plates he made in the late 1800s [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Also, what resolution is good for archiving....600dpi? I assume they are BW plates, in which case digital ice will not work as the silver grains will stop the IR just the same a dust or scratches will. digital ice is really only useful with color film where IR will pass through the dyes making it posible to tell detail on the film from defects. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.