rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Most of my computer activity lately has consisted of scanning media from my past, and then using gimp or PhotoShop LE to deal with various issues with the resulting images. Our recent trip to Quebec City and Montreal caused me to dig into my collection of media and find some slides I knew must be there somewhere; yesterday my activity was spent on slides I took when I went with my family to the 1967 World's Fair held in Montreal.

I was a college student then; my camera was a Kodak Instamatic 100 my parents had given me as a Christmas present a few years earlier; this was a true point-and-shoot camera - unlike the "P&S" cameras sold in recent years, aperture, shutter speed, and focus were all fixed. According to the slide mounts, I was using "Sears" film, which causes me to guess today that this was some inexpensive {I was a student, remember} slide film repackaged for the retailing giant. All of this is to say that these are not wonderful pictures.

However, the last one caught my attention. Despite its technical flaws, I like it even today. Apparently I was standing in front of the Soviet exhibit looking west towards the U.S. exhibit illuminated by the setting sun. As I looked at the first image I made from that slide, I realized I could make out people on the ground, so I adjusted the scanner to increase the "gain" in the darker areas. Here are those two images; I'm curious to know which of them you think is better: what the slide film captured or what I was probably seeing. (if you find the technical flaws to be too off-putting, that is OK - I've already stipulated they are not wonderful in that regard)

version 1 - what the slide film captured

(Download)

version 2 - what I was probably seeing

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I haven't used a scanner for several years, and then only for documents, so this whole exercise is of interest to me - and makes me wish I had kept many of my color slides, as well as b&w negatives!

For me, neither is better or worse than the other, just different results - one that is like a lighter exposure if shot today with digital. Being able to see the people adds to the story, but having the backlit dome darker is of interest as well.

Thanks for the story and information!

(edit - as cabunit pointed out, if it interests you, selectively darken the upper half and have best of both )

cabunit Loc: SE Connecticut

Ah, yes, I still have a few Instamatic slides I can't part with, even with what I see today as, well, lousy image quality (that's a knock on my photos, not yours!). To answer your question, I like seeing the people (and the people-mover) because they give the photo a bit more context. But I'm not sure it has to be either/or. I'm not telling you what you should like, but I'm guessing that even a few simple adjustments to highlights and shadows might surprise you and get you the best of both. Worth a try anyway.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

An interesting exercise. Like Linda, I am not sure I prefer one over the other. The original has more artistic feel to it, and relies on contrast and shape and light for its impact. The new version lets us see context. I do both, and don't have a singular preference.

I have found lost detail in a lot of scanned images, though it is mostly of questionable value because I did NOT have a decent camera till around 8 years ago. Interestingly, I have retrieved some decent detail from scanned photos from the most ancient family albums - 1905-1940 is about the range where I've found the hidden detail. I don't know if this was due to the technology of printing, or the quality of the family camera, or the media used, or what. It is simply a discovery I've made.