Mark, I would not say a last resort for
glass. One of my first jobs may years ago was
making copy negs of small to 8x10 sized
prints. We had set up a black felt back picture
frame with glass to hold our art work. We also
used ( as Jeff suggested) a black board cut to
just the size of the lens. The only white any
where close was the writing on the lens. The
lens hood normally took care of that problem. A
copy light set up of 4 lights is a good place to
start, and a meter used at the 4 corners and
middle helps assure even lighting. And in the
set up with glass dust is not always your enemy.
Some older small picture are less than sharp and
the dust can be used to focus your shot. You
just need to make sure to blow it away before
shooting or you will need to do a little extra
work. It also helps to use a cloth covered cable
release as opposed to a plastice covered one as
they don?t shine when lit; at least not as bad.
I find that the polarized lighting works great
with colored art work but I would only recommend
that lighting style for B&W copy work as a last
resort or at the very least, a distant
alternative. The polarized screens when last I
bought some, where close to $50 a piece for 16?
squares. These worked great for the many many
paintings that I photographed while making a
living in Taos, NM for the art crowd. And as
long as you don?t melt them, they will give you
years of controlled lighting. I used two 500
watt lights and when needed, a diffusion
material to soften the light and the hide
texture in the surface of the original.
Marc, I wouldn?t get too carried away with
perfectly matched angles of your camera lens and
art work either. While it is best, this is a
copy and I find that a small level and a ruler
or tape measure will give you all you
need. There are two types of set up as far as I
look at it; one is camera up on a stand or
tripod shooting down and 2) camera on stand or
tripod shooting at work on a wall or easel.
With all the talk about shooting it, we have all
failed to mention printing it. Are you trying to
make it look the same? Paper and developer will
need to be considered. For years I used
extralure to match some of the older photocards
that were brought to me. David Lewis, a
bromoilist in Canada, was having a graded paper
made that is really a nice flat surface. It is
just a graded paper however but prints very nice.
What can you expect? You should be able to match
or exceed the quality of the original print. Have fun.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
----------
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:19 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: duplicate info
Eric
I agree 100% about glass. It should be a last
resort. It is far too hard to control and
introduces more problems than it cures.
I believe you are also correct about the
color/temp of the light. That and the fact that
when working in a controlled enviroment you can
control all aspects of the shoot.
Stains can be hard to deal with however a
overall yellowing of the original can be offset
with a blue filter. Shoot both ways and bracket.
Lights on a copy stand at around 45 deg are
ideal. However if you haven't done a great deal
of this they can be hard to control and when
poorly controlled highlight the flaws of the
original and introduce glare onto the subjects
surface. Sheets of polarizing material are very
expensive and I always thought on polarizer on
the lense tended to make the image duller. I
used to use a 4 light setup and would often find
variations between bulbs, even those of the same
age. The flatness of the light over the original
is very important and can't be judged
effectively by eyesight. One should meter the corners and the center.
Mark Carney
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Eric Neilsen Photography
To: <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: duplicate info
Marc and Mark, Glass? Sure it is great if you
use a very controlled environment. Terrible if
you screw up. Does the photo have stains? A
slight color? Pay close attention as your eye
will let a bit of a yellow or orange color go,
but your film will capture it and turn your
white to gray and you will lose detail in the
highlights as you try and make a ?new white?. It
is great to use a black felt background. Why? It
simply allows you to shot and SEE just a speck
of detail in your shadow values and then allows
you to adjust your development to place your
high lights. Is it a glossy paper or a textured
surface? Cracks or smooth? This can help you to
determine the type of lighting that will
work. Outdoors in open shade can be good, but
it can also lead to slightly blue light? That
might be OK, unless there is a faded blue pen or stain.
Treat it as a science of photography; light has
color and quality, use both for you.
Just my two cents,
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
----------
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:08 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: duplicate info
Marc
The photo and the camera need to be perfectly aligned.
I would use a waist level viewer.
The magnet idea is great, I used to use it all the time.
You want soft diffuse light. Outdoors in open
shade is good. It would probably be more
convienent to work indoors though. Try working
in an area ( a small room) with white walls and
ceilings and bouncing several lights into them
away from the photo. When done right this
produces a controllable and gentle light.
I would NEVER use glass over the photo. Far too many problems.
I would meter the 4 corners of the print and the
center. This will allow you to tweak the lights
to get an even coverage of the photo. Small
differences from one to the other are fine.
I would consider using the 80mm lens and shoot
the image just alittle fat. If you do use a 50mm
then watch for distortion. If you use an
extension tube you must increase your exposure
so a bit of bracketing would be a good idea.
I would lock the mirror up and use a cable release.
Lastly I would leave the copy setup in place
until I proofed the negatives or shoot a
polaroid. In fact polaroid positive/negative B+W
film can produce an excellent copy neg. I guess it is still made?
Good luck
Mark Carney
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:marc.peeters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Marc Peeters
To: <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] duplicate info
Subject: duplicate info
I need some information for what I can expect for the next job.
At this moment it is to hot here in Belgium for
going into ma darkroom. We have about 30°C
during the day which mean in my darkroom 6-7° more.
But a friend of the family asked me to make a
new picture for his grandfather. The picture
was made in the year 35. There is no negative so
I need to make a new one. Dimensions of the
pictures are 50cm x 70 cm (+- 20 x 26). He
asked me to make a new picture with the same size.
I'm planning to make a new negative with my 6x6
Hasselblad. Which lens can I use for the best
result 50 - 80 ore 150 ?? Is it better to use
it with rings (I have 10 and 21). Do I need to
put a glass on the picture before I make a new
negative or gives this to much reflections ??
I usually use T-max 100, is this OK or is there
something better for these things ??
And what can I expect from the general
result ?? Will it have the same sharpness or much less ??
Thanks a lot
Marc
