----------
Woronora Cemetery Transcription lookup MAKINHi Mike, There are 17 Makins buriedcremated in Woronora. Edwin Makin died 3-7-1928 Age 68 plus 1 years Burial Congregational Section VV Position 0044 Sarah H (?) Makin died 11-6-1932 Age...
RM: After having spent years reproducing high quality black + white photos with the largest cameras on the market (up to 12 feet long) I can say that the only reliable way to get high quality continuous tone copy negatives and prints, is to use 4 x 5 inch film (or larger) which is specifically made for the purpose. Good results can be obtained fom35mm black + white copy film, but when they are not usually anywhere near as good - although a lot depends on the skill of the operator, the camera, and the price a customer is prepared to pay. Modern copying of black + white photos with colour film processed automatically is often atrocious - almost sickening sometimes.
The best solution for high quality production of black + white (or colour) photos these days, is to have them scanned on a "high-end" drum scanner by a send tradesman. If the old negatives are available, some truly remarkable images can be obtained - which are FAR superior to the original prints. Negatives have a far greater density range than photo paper, so there is always a lot more detail in them, and this detail can be seen on your computer screens when photos are enlarged. This is why *slides* are always so clear -- you are looking at "First generation" images with a high density range - instead of a "second generation" image with a low density range.
The alternatives to a high-end drum scanner are: * A modern desktop drum scanner * A modern flatbed scanner with a KNOWN density range. (If your scanner specifications do not give the density range it means thay are a low quality scanner which is *incapable* of looking into the deep shadows and capturing all the detail.
RM: If you want reasonable quality in black + white, you need black + white materials.
RM: The film area was much larger, and you get more detail with larger film. Clasiic examples of this are some of those old American civil war photos. The people in those old photos look REAL when we are shown those old photos on tv documentraies :-)
Most of those photos were taken on film (or glbutt plates) which were called "Quarter plate; half-plate of full-plate" -- and were perhaps 5 to 20 times sharper than the results thatt were obtainable wth small film. When cameras became smaller, and 35mm film was introduced, they were not even taken seriously by photographers who were interested in quality, but fortunately a lot of the poor quality was reduced because of the manufacture of higher-resolution film and higher resolution lenses and improved chemistry for developing.
In simple terms: See how much detail you get with a tiny area of film (or a scan). The bigger the film - the more you see; or in modern terms -- the more pixels you have in a scan or digital pic - the more detail you get.
RM: No, it's not your eyes. Bigger film gave better photos.
Ray
