copying Black & White Print

Hello,

 

Are there any advantages to copying WWII B&W photos via B&W film and Nikkor 55 f2.8 vs Epson 4870 scanner for

producing additional copies of originals? Any experience/recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

RA

I'd say no. I've taken pictures-of-pictures in the past, introducing another level of grain, uneven lighting, etc. They don't compare to the results with most any cheap flatbed scan. For typical snapshots 300 dpi is sufficient. A few prints I scanned appeared to be medium format contact prints, or just better quality enlargement, and then up to 600 dpi is warranted.

When you photograph an original print you add in many variables, particularly reflections. Scanning will give you fantastic quality. I have scanned my fine art B&W prints from the 70s and have managed to produce almost equal ink jet prints.

I agree with Mendel and Norman. 30 years ago I copied many old family photographs on B&W copy film

(a special low speed fine grain copy film with a tone scale made for copy work). I still have the originals

and the copy negs, but I've now scanned most of the same prints. Digital copies are very useful.

 

The only caveat would be for archival storage. The digital files will last as long as you maintain them.

B&W negs can last hundreds of years without attention.

>>B&W negs can last hundreds of years without attention.<<

 

At best this is true IFF (if and only if) the processing of them is done to archival standards, storage is under

controlled environmental

conditions, and many other caveats that mean that negative material is not free of the need for maintenance

either, and none of that maintenance is called "attention."

The only time the scanner may drive you nuts is with textured papers, they seem to exaggerate that. That "silk" Y surface stuff is hell!

you can cross polarize that stuff the same way as film, but you need a digital camera with a polarizer on the lens and copystand lighting,

with the ability to use polarizers on

your lights. I don't see any particular advantage besides longevity for rollfilm or the ability to cross-polarize in this scenario. with sheet film--

yes--there is still a definite advantage from an archival and a higher resolution point of view if you have a good setup. no denying you can do

finer contrast controls with scanning, but film in some ways is nicer, because of the ability to knock out surface textures, and the longevity

factor as well. expect about 50 years for acetate roll film in decent environment, 2-3x that for polyester. the final decision I guess is in the

ouput--do you want to print them in a darkroom or digitally, or will you scan the film for digital output? same goes with how much retouching

you want to do, and whether you can

extract the detail out of them with filters and development, or whether you can do a better job with the scanner. If you have the original prints,

then consider them to be the "archival" copy--as long as they're in decent shape. I work in an archive type environment and believe film to be

more long lived than a lot of the prints I have had to copy--but in practical terms, looked at within the life of how the copies would be used? I

would copy them however you feel most comfortable with. My opinions only/as always.