OT Making enlargements of old pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Keith Nuttle, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. Keith Nuttle

    Keith Nuttle Guest

    My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.

    I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    enlargements with this setup.

    What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step
    or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.
    Keith Nuttle, Nov 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Keith Nuttle

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Keith Nuttle wrote:

    > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    > small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    >
    > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    > enlargements with this setup.
    >
    > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step
    > or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.


    Hi Keith...

    I've been working a similar project for well over a year
    now... mostly scanning negatives and slides of the kids
    and grand kids - but some I only have prints of, so doing
    what you're proposing.

    So, I'll tell you that you can do it, and if that's all
    that's available to you, it will be much better than
    nothing.

    Far, far better though is to scan them on a good
    2400 dpi scanner, manipulate them with photoshop or
    paint shop pro and then print them.

    Absolutely the best - and more so in your case seeing
    you mention only a few - is to take them to one of
    the kodak kiosks. There are two types (at least here,
    in Canada) One of them has an attached scanner,
    scans your photo, let's you "play" with it on screen,
    then quickly delivers you your prints (up to and
    including 8 x 10) This is a little more expensive
    then the regular kiosk - 5.99 canadian for an 8 x 10)
    but the results are jaw dropping astonishing.

    Perhaps if you post your city (and if large city, the
    suburb) the kodak rep who frequents here might be
    able to tell you the nearest address of the proper
    kiosk.

    Hope this helps...

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith Nuttle <> writes:

    > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever small
    > pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    >
    > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    > enlargements with this setup.
    >
    > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step or in
    > two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.


    As the other poster said, the best way is a scanner. I suspect you would only
    get so-so prints from your Olympus. If you don't own a scanner or have a
    friend with a scanner, there are places that will scan in pictures for you (for
    a fee obviously). I recall that the printing station at Walmarts often times
    have a scanner. Going from 4x6 to 8x10 is doable, though of course you are
    going to have to crop the picture for the 8x10 aspect ratio. I did it
    recently, and I scanned in the pictures at 600 dpi in 16-bit mode, did some
    boosting of the gamma to try and separate the dark tuxes from the shadows, ran
    unsharp mask, saved them as 8 bit, and printed them out.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Nov 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Keith Nuttle

    GeneR Guest

    I have been working on this problem for years. Here's an example of a
    1912 professional photo (contact print) restored and colored.
    Before: http://www.photoprojects.net/before.jpg
    After: http://www.photoprojects.net/current.jpg
    Gene

    Keith Nuttle wrote:

    > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    > small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    > enlargements with this setup.
    > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step
    > or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.
    GeneR, Nov 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Keith Nuttle

    Frank ess Guest


    > Keith Nuttle wrote:
    >
    >> My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have
    >> sever small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    >> I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X
    >> 10 enlargements with this setup.
    >> What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one
    >> step or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.


    GeneR" <"gfrhodes wrote:
    > I have been working on this problem for years. Here's an example of a
    > 1912 professional photo (contact print) restored and colored.
    > Before: http://www.photoprojects.net/before.jpg
    > After: http://www.photoprojects.net/current.jpg


    Very nice work.

    At a different point on the spectrum is this one:

    http://www.fototime.com/7288CFDB664876C/orig.jpg ,

    a 30-something-year-old 3.5 by 3.5-inch print from an Instamatic
    negative. The process was quick and easy, and 600 dpi scanning yielded a
    2100 by 2100-pixel image that made a pretty good 8 by 8-inch print.

    Photo Shop 7:
    · Level by picking a white point on the border
    · Hand-job cloning to eliminate a dozen or so big spots
    · Gaussian Blur at a radius of 1.3
    · Unsharp Mask 400%, 1.3, 4
    · Edit-Fade USM
    · Save as a .tiff file in the print-from directory.

    Open in Paint Shop Pro 8:
    · Size to fit the paper
    · Send it to Mr Epson's driver
    · Wait a bit
    · Compare the product to the monitor view, and nod


    The Save-for-web version is reduced to 760-by in 10% decrements (Hoon
    Im's Stairstep Image Sizer); USMed at 50%, 1.3, 4; Edit-Fade USM; saved
    at Photo Shop JPG quality 30.

    Not perfect, but presentable and economical of time, with PS actions ...


    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Nov 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Even a 600 dpi scanner will be better than copying them with many
    digital cameras. A 2 x 3 still yields an 1800 x 1200 image, a 4 x 6
    yields a great 3600 x 2400 image. No worries about close up focusing
    with macro lens, getting macro exposure right, etc. You can pick up a
    600 dpi scanner for well under a hundred bucks. A 1200 dpi scanner
    would be better yet, of course, and now adays a reasonable 1200 dpi
    scanner isn't all that expensive.

    Ken Weitzel <> wrote in message news:<2Wwjd.142094$nl.128008@pd7tw3no>...
    > Keith Nuttle wrote:
    >
    > > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    > > small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    > >
    > > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    > > enlargements with this setup.
    > >
    > > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step
    > > or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.

    >
    > Hi Keith...
    >
    > I've been working a similar project for well over a year
    > now... mostly scanning negatives and slides of the kids
    > and grand kids - but some I only have prints of, so doing
    > what you're proposing.
    >
    > So, I'll tell you that you can do it, and if that's all
    > that's available to you, it will be much better than
    > nothing.
    >
    > Far, far better though is to scan them on a good
    > 2400 dpi scanner, manipulate them with photoshop or
    > paint shop pro and then print them.
    >
    > Absolutely the best - and more so in your case seeing
    > you mention only a few - is to take them to one of
    > the kodak kiosks. There are two types (at least here,
    > in Canada) One of them has an attached scanner,
    > scans your photo, let's you "play" with it on screen,
    > then quickly delivers you your prints (up to and
    > including 8 x 10) This is a little more expensive
    > then the regular kiosk - 5.99 canadian for an 8 x 10)
    > but the results are jaw dropping astonishing.
    >
    > Perhaps if you post your city (and if large city, the
    > suburb) the kodak rep who frequents here might be
    > able to tell you the nearest address of the proper
    > kiosk.
    >
    > Hope this helps...
    >
    > Ken
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Nov 8, 2004
    #6
  7. I'm not sure a 1200 dpi scanner has any advantage for scanning photographs.
    There probably isn't any detail on them finer than 300 dpi, much less 600.

    "Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Even a 600 dpi scanner will be better than copying them with many
    > digital cameras. A 2 x 3 still yields an 1800 x 1200 image, a 4 x 6
    > yields a great 3600 x 2400 image. No worries about close up focusing
    > with macro lens, getting macro exposure right, etc. You can pick up a
    > 600 dpi scanner for well under a hundred bucks. A 1200 dpi scanner
    > would be better yet, of course, and now adays a reasonable 1200 dpi
    > scanner isn't all that expensive.
    >
    > Ken Weitzel <> wrote in message
    > news:<2Wwjd.142094$nl.128008@pd7tw3no>...
    >> Keith Nuttle wrote:
    >>
    >> > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    >> > small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    >> >
    >> > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    >> > enlargements with this setup.
    >> >
    >> > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step
    >> > or in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.

    >>
    >> Hi Keith...
    >>
    >> I've been working a similar project for well over a year
    >> now... mostly scanning negatives and slides of the kids
    >> and grand kids - but some I only have prints of, so doing
    >> what you're proposing.
    >>
    >> So, I'll tell you that you can do it, and if that's all
    >> that's available to you, it will be much better than
    >> nothing.
    >>
    >> Far, far better though is to scan them on a good
    >> 2400 dpi scanner, manipulate them with photoshop or
    >> paint shop pro and then print them.
    >>
    >> Absolutely the best - and more so in your case seeing
    >> you mention only a few - is to take them to one of
    >> the kodak kiosks. There are two types (at least here,
    >> in Canada) One of them has an attached scanner,
    >> scans your photo, let's you "play" with it on screen,
    >> then quickly delivers you your prints (up to and
    >> including 8 x 10) This is a little more expensive
    >> then the regular kiosk - 5.99 canadian for an 8 x 10)
    >> but the results are jaw dropping astonishing.
    >>
    >> Perhaps if you post your city (and if large city, the
    >> suburb) the kodak rep who frequents here might be
    >> able to tell you the nearest address of the proper
    >> kiosk.
    >>
    >> Hope this helps...
    >>
    >> Ken
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "Keith Nuttle" <> wrote in message
    news:eFwjd.859623$...
    > My wife does not have any large photos of her dad. She does have sever
    > small pictures 2X 3, 4 X 6, etc.
    >
    > I have a 3.2 megapixel Olympus with a micro mode. Could I make 8 X 10
    > enlargements with this setup.
    >
    > What would be the best way to do it. Make the enlargement in one step or
    > in two steps like you would do with a chemical enlargement.
    >


    There is no way to make an enlargement with any more detail than is in the
    original print. A scan at 200 to 250 ppi will capture all the detail in any
    print on paper. You can make an 8X10, and it will look good if you don't
    try to view it too closely. Adding more pixels (up to twice as many) by
    interpolation with an image editing program will help somewhat. Otherwise,
    your printer software will do that job for you.

    It will be difficult to get a good copy of a print with a camera, unless tou
    have a copy stand. If you only have a few prints, you could have a photo
    service copy them for you.
    Marvin Margoshes, Nov 8, 2004
    #8
  9. "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message news:<418f9842$>...
    > I'm not sure a 1200 dpi scanner has any advantage for scanning photographs.
    > There probably isn't any detail on them finer than 300 dpi, much less 600.
    >


    While this is true for enlarged prints, the original poster had some 2
    x 3 or thereabouts prints, which may have been contact sheets. While
    a 600 dpi may be good enough, a 1200 may in that situation yield a
    marginal but possible gain.
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Nov 9, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Flycaster
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    723
    Jim Davis
    Jul 12, 2003
  2. Flycaster
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    789
    Jim Davis
    Jul 12, 2003
  3. Wayne

    Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

    Wayne, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    3,308
    Philip Homburg
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. Stu

    Enlargements from Digital?

    Stu, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    702
    Scott Elliot
    Sep 29, 2003
  5. mark_digital©

    Enlargements aren't as good as before

    mark_digital©, Oct 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    343
    Flycaster
    Oct 26, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page