I was filled with glee when I first used my scan back to photograph dark moody oil paintings. The software allowed a great degree of control before committing to disc and I do believe that whilst the file size of 35mb is not huge as opposed to say shooting on roll film and scanning the resulting images were better than I could have achieved with film/scanning and as Richard points out there is potential to be creative with lighting something a scanner is incapable of. Subsequently we scan very little now on our flatbed , preferring to copy with the scan back which eliminates all the dust problems,allows copying of textured originals and has the benefit of not damaging old delicate and fragile photographs.Creases for instance do not have colour fringing as produced by a flatbed scanner and it is so easy to bracket exposures to record extended highlight and shadow detail for sandwiching in Photoshop later.
Regards Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Rd, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire. England .TF1 5DJ 44 (0) 1952 618986. www.infocus-photography.co.uk For transparencies from digital files ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Kenward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Having made something of a speciality of the photography of old masters > in particular in the past, I would suggest that greater creativity would > be possible by the photographing of the original. This allows carefully > controlled cross lighting to be used in conjunction with the copying > lighting. This is something requiring a very careful balance as it's > very subjective! Matters not whether film or digiital...there we're > back on topic at last ! =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
