Photograph from locket

I have a couple of old lockets with very small (1 cm or less) photos in.
I'd like to get bigger (even postage stamp size would be a big improvement; I don't expect A3) copies as they are the only existing photos of one of my grandparents.
Using the 'macro' option on my camera just isn't good enough.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/2017 11:44, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

Scanner on high resolution?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And if at all possible, with the photo removed from the locket. Many modern scanners have a *very* shallow depth of field and will render anything that is not exactly on the scanner glass to be out of focus. Also the locket glass may be dirty and/or cause optical distortion near its edges if it's slightly curved and not flat glass.
If the photos can't be removed from the locket for fear of damaging them, maybe get someone with a good macro lens and even lighting from four corners to photograph the locket.
If using a scanner with the photos still in the locket, experiment with the locket rotated in various orientations because the light often comes from one side so any shadows may obscure part of the photo, and you want to "move" the shadow so it is on the frame rather than the photo. Try to rotate in multiples of 90 degrees because that allows photo manipulation software to rotate the scan back to the correct orientation without losses due to interpolation.
Maybe experiment with adjusting the gamma and histogram black/white points of the resulting scans/photos to improve the contrast slightly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I cannot help wondering though just how good such small photos are going to be if they are quite old ones. Somebody tried some of those little prints you used to get from black and white cameras for a friend a while back and at best it was grainy, at worst fuzzy.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/2017 11:44, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

Depends on what camera kit you have... traditionally a SLR with extension tubes between lens and camera was the way to go very close. Also sometimes you can get an adaptor that allows the normal lens to be reversed (i.e. mounted on the camera by its filter screw mount). That will also give a fairly extreme close up capability.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/17 12:43, John Rumm wrote:

yep. Serious macro lens or high res scanner are the two options.
Many photo boutiques or professional photographers will have one or the other to hand.
--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

+1 And as extension tubes are just empty tubes they are inexpensive to buy..
--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nige Danton wrote:

Depends if you buy ones filled with Kenko air or Canon air ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/2017 15:43, Andy Burns wrote:

I generally buy them secondhand (since I don't need working aperture linkage to use them on a telescope).
You can also get +1 +2 +5 diopter macro lens addons for an existing camera to allow closer focussing. Absolutely rigid mounting of the camera and using the time delay or remote is essential since tiny shift in camera position or vibration and the image will be motion blurred. SRB sell them.
The trick is to do it in good uniform light and with the longest lens you can get away with. I like 100mm. There may be a slight advantage in photographing it slightly off axis with a black cloth on the far side to lose any reflections from the cover glass. Use perspective correction to tweak it to square again. It is a bit trial and error but you should be able to get a decent image with modest kit.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/17 11:44, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

The "macro" option on your camera may not be good enough (mine, although 10 years old, will get down to 1cm from the object). Can you try a different camera with a closer macro setting?
Having said that, it is more than likely the photos you have were cut from a 120 (Kodak Brownie) size photo, and really have little detail in them. If you enlarge them, they will be very grainy. Try looking at them through a x10 loupe and see how detailed- or otherwise - they are.
--

Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'd have thought the optical quality of the original camera's lens would be a fairly significant factor, in addition to the graininess of the original negative. Texture of printing paper and optical quality of enlarger lens would further degrade things.
I have a daguerrotype (negative on glass, viewed against a grey mirror to produce a positive image) in the form of a 2x3" photo in a bakelite-type frame. It was taken in about 1860 and the sharpness is superb, given the more primitive lenses and the need for a long exposure. Scanning that was "interesting": I had to experiment with various orientations to move shadows around, and a lot of tweaking of black/white levels and gamma to bring out as much shadow/highlight detail as possible. Weird to see my great great great grandma at the age of about 18.
This is a quick photo with my mobile phone
https://s29.postimg.org/svoyf1dl3/20170128_132548_small.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 13:38:45 UTC, NY wrote:

That's amazing.
My originals are (viewed with a 12x magnifier) not good quality, but getting them out of the locket and photo'd flat has made a significant improvement.
Still not great, but hopefully good enough for my mother to see images of her parents again. She's not long for this world.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/17 13:38, NY wrote:

Well, I guess the 120 (negative) film would have had a fairly good resolution, but I have no idea about the printing paper. I wonder if an enlarger would have been used, or might it have been a simple contact print? Whatever, I would think that the camera's lens (if a Brownie) would have been a bit of a weak point. And, of course, we don't know under what conditions the photo was taken - light level, whether or not the subject and the photographer were completely still, etc.

Remarkable clarity, but not surprising for a Daguerreotype.
I had heard of that process, but knew nothing about it. One comment in the Wikipedia article fascinated me: "A well-exposed and sharp large-format daguerreotype is able to faithfully record fine detail at a resolution that today's digital cameras are not able to match". That referenced an article at https://www.wired.com/2010/07/ff_daguerrotype_panorama/ which noted: "In 1848, Charles Fontayne and William Porter produced one of the most famous photographs in the history of the medium — a panorama spanning some 2 miles of Cincinnati waterfront. They did it with eight 6.5- by 8.5-inch daguerreotype plates, a then-new technology that in skilled hands displays mind-blowing resolution.
Fontayne and Porter were definitely skilled, but no one knew just how amazing their images were until three years ago, when conservators at George Eastman House in Rochester, New York, began restoration work on the deteriorating plates. Magnifying glasses didn’t exhaust their detail; neither did an ultrasharp macro lens. Finally, the conservators deployed a stereo microscope. What they saw astonished them: The details — down to window curtains and wheel spokes — remained crisp even at 30X magnification. The panorama could be blown up to 170 by 20 feet without losing clarity; a digicam would have to record 140,000 megapixels per shot to match that."
Wow!
--

Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:25:17 +0000, Jeff Layman

If you take a black & white negetive, and view the emultion side with the light just right, you see a positive image in a Daguerre-esque manner.
--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's a close-up scan of her face
https://s29.postimg.org/e3op2n0nb/Ruth_Dyson.jpg
Very good for 1860s lenses and emulsions. Being a negative (viewed as a positive) there's only one photographic process, rather than the two with prints, but even so it's good.
I've seen some of the collodion prints on display at the Bradford photo museum of an early photographer's trip to (IIRC) Egypt, and they are remarkably sharp, given that the lenses were probably fairly large f numbers to get reasonable exposures with slow emulsions.
Even 35 mm negs/slides are not as good, limited by lenses and fine-ness of grain as a proportion of image size.

Done that. It works best if the neg is a bit under-exposed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 13:38:45 UTC, NY wrote:

It's always strange looking at pictures of ones ancestors. You wonder what they were like,how they lived. And what they would have thought of today's world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd love to know the circumstances of the photograph being taken. As far as we know, she was from a fairly poor mill-worker family, so how did they get the money to have a studio portrait made? Did their friends and relatives think that they were mad to "waste" all their money on a "likeness"? What was the occasion when it was taken, a few years before her 21st birthday?
My grandpa has written a brief family tree showing the line back from me to her, and he's written "Aged 18 on photo" which I've crossed out and written "16-17" and "1855-6" - I *think* I may have found a date on the photo somewhere. Her first child was born in 1867, so this was about 10 years before she got married, given that children usually followed pretty close after marriage, in the days before family planning ;-) My dad's got all the family tree research which would give much more info.
The photo was left to me by my great grandma who died when I was about 13, so I remember her - weird to think how old and frail she seemed compared with mum who is now about the age that great grandma was when I remember her. We've got a cherished recording that my dad made of great grandma and grandpa (her son) talking about life when they were growing up. They both witnessed a tram crash at the bottom of a steep hill in Dewsbury, and grandpa remembered "a ball of rags" rolling across the cobbles just before the tram hit the bank, as the conductress bailed out. Great grandma remembered having to live with her grandparents (the woman in the photo and her very strict husband) because "I was sickly and hadn't to climb hills" - and her grandparents lived at the top of a long hill near her school whereas she and her parents lived at the bottom of the hill; her grandpa made her drink cod liver oil every morning after breakfast which invariably made her throw up ("so the efficacy of your breakfast was somewhat doubtful - cos it didn't stop down long enough to do any good" Grandpa commented, in his rather flowery language). Her grandfather wouldn't let his wife wear a dress that she'd bought by installments until it was fully paid for ("makes a mockery of grandma's mail order catalogue", grandpa commented about my grandma being an agent for Empire Stores mail order). Grandpa remembered taking his dad's lunch to the iron foundry where he worked, and seeing a fight between two men (one of whom turned out be his dad) on top of a gantry next to the red-hot furnace chimney, when one man had gone "mad" due to carbon monoxide poisoning and my great grandpa climbed up to wrestle the guy to the ground before he fell off and killed himself. Another occasion he walked into the foundry yard with his dad's lunch and saw a horse that was pulling a dray killed when a huge casting dropped from a crane several feet from my grandpa. And so on, for two hours, one story after another.
What would they (even my grandpa, who died in 1979) have made of computers and the internet, and all the social changes that there have been. Ruth Dyson, in the photo, died in 1910, so she never knew about the horrors of WW One, or that several of her grandsons fought and were killed in it - or that one of her relatives fell on hard times after being widowed and had to resort to "earning her living on her back", as you might say :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/2017 20:07, NY wrote:

It was suggested on a TV program recently that wars boosted photography. People going to war wanted a picture of their loved ones. The Crimea war was 1853/6.
--
mailto: news admac {dot] myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 20:07:39 UTC, NY wrote:

There's lots of stuff I wish I'd asked my parents before the died. And grandparents come to that. We were very poor though I never realised it at the time. Most people were the same.
When I was a kid, there were lots of single women about with no husbands. Not enough men to go round after the war. They lived sad and lonely lives. I never knew they had trams in Dewsbury. (I was born in Huddersfield)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/01/2017 11:44, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

USB microscope???
Example, not seller recommendation <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2MP-1000X-8-LED-USB-Digital-Microscope-Endoscope-Zoom-Camera-Magnifier-Stand-SP/391298957684?_trksid=p2045573.c100505.m3226&_trkparms=aid%3D555014%26algo%3DPL.DEFAULT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20151005190540%26meid%3D651dc6e8d8534c869cba060132b1855f%26pid%3D100505%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26
OR
http://tinyurl.com/hnkv6d9
Just watch out which supplier you use as some of these products have 0.3M pixel detectors (and some others claim higher but with interpolation)
--
mailto: news admac {dot] myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.