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.
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
Maybe experiment with adjusting the gamma and histogram black/white points
of the resulting scans/photos to improve the contrast slightly.
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
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
On 28/01/2017 11:44, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.
On 28/01/17 11:44, email@example.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.
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
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 13:38:45 UTC, NY wrote:
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.
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."
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.
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 :-)
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)
On 28/01/2017 11:44, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Example, not seller recommendation
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)
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.