My second post. For kicks, I tried taking pictures of old film photos using a digital camera. I would like to hear what the all you photographers think about this.
They look good but why wouldnt you just scan them to the computer?Just seems like it would be easier.
flyguy
Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico
Like the F-4 --- good question about not scanning in the image rather than taking a picture of it.
Also, the first one is a little "blocky" or too dense in the shadows and detail is lost. If you had scanned in the image you could use the histogram and the levels function to get better dynamic range in the image and more of the detail.
Thanks for the reply and suggestion. I don't know which is best so I thought I would try it and see what others think of the results. BTW the covered bridge was taken by my first SLR which I bought used on a trip. I knew nothing about SLRs and lenses and did not know there was fungus on the lens. All my pictures turned out to have this misty look. I kind of liked it on some pictures.
Frosty wrote:
My second post. For kicks, I tried taking pictures of old film photos using a digital camera. I would like to hear what the all you photographers think about this.
Not bad but I think scanning would have worked better... just a thought.
Gramps
Loc: Republic of Tejas--Tomball, TX
Frosty wrote:
My second post. For kicks, I tried taking pictures of old film photos using a digital camera. I would like to hear what the all you photographers think about this.
Liked the photos. Especially the F4. Betchu never had need to use the tail hook!
Paul B. wrote:
They look good but why wouldnt you just scan them to the computer?Just seems like it would be easier.
Did a 11x14 that was too big to scan and I have done some that were glued in albaums that would be damaged if taken out. - Dave
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.