Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.0.451.1)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:57:32 -0700
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([216.235.248.73]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v6.0.451.1) with SMTP
          id 1487929203; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:57:30 -0700
Received: from 64.4.16.58 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2004082616593246847 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:59:32 GMT
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
  Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:57:44 -0700
Received: from 24.87.26.66 by by22fd.bay22.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
 Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:57:44 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [24.87.26.66]
X-Originating-Email: [wayne_b_young{at}hotmail.com]
X-Sender: wayne_b_young{at}hotmail.com
From: "Wayne Young" 
To: photo{at}fanciful.org
Bcc: 
Subject: RE: Re[2]: historical manuscripts
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:57:44 -0700
X-Orig-Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: 
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2004 20:57:44.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[559CBED0:01C48BAF]

Thanks for sharing, ayse, but it appeared to be private and maybe 
privileged...

Cheers, good to hear from you!    :)

-Wayne


>From: ayse saray 
>Reply-To: 
>To: photo{at}fanciful.org
>Subject: Re[2]: historical manuscripts
>Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:51:49 +0300
>
>thank you. :)
>i forward larry's very brief (!) documentary for your information. :)
>
>
>This is a forwarded message
>From: Larry N. Bolch 
>To: PhotoGallery{at}yahoogroups.com
>Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2004, 9:22:57 AM
>Subject: [PhotoGallery] historical manuscripts
>
>===8<==============Original message text===============
>ayse saray wrote:
> > hi gang,
> >
> > is there a technique preferred for transferring historical/ancient
> > manuscripts to digital medium?
> > the guys that asked briefly think of using a digital camera and a
> > table (etc) to put them on. but they can not decide the light to use
> > to avoid the harm.
>
>Of course scanning would be the way to get the most accurate detail. 
>However, if
>they are old and delicate, this may not be the safest means, since they 
>must be
>held against the scanning surface. Scanning allows one to make very high
>resolution files, with extremely fine detail.
>
>Most camera lenses are not corrected for flat-field, which is necessary for
>accurate focus across a document. The MicroNikkors are, so it would be
>reasonable to use one on a digital body. While I love my CP5000 for work in 
>the
>field, and it has excellent macro capabilities for flowers, bugs and the 
>like, I
>doubt that it would do high quality copy work. A D70 or D1x would probably 
>be
>the current choice since they are both around 6MP and both will accept a
>MicroNikkor lens.
>
>There are a lot of rumors going round that the D1X has a successor that 
>will be
>announced at Photokina next month. If so, it would probably be a better 
>choice
>since it will enjoy three years of technology beyond the D1X - as fine as 
>it is.
>However, it was predicted that Nikon would release it at PMA last February.
>Nikon ships its cameras when it is ready to, no matter what we predict.
>
>There is no need for a great deal of light if the camera is mounted 
>solidly.
>Very long exposures are entirely practical, since the neither the 
>manuscripts
>nor the camera is in motion. As long as a white balance is taken off a 
>Kodak
>grey card or equivalent, low wattage household bulbs can be used. The only
>essential is getting very even light, and I have a web topic that covers 
>that in
>detail.
>http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/copy_setup.htm
>
>There are also full spectrum fluorescent lighting units that are very 
>gentle,
>but they are also very costly. Lowell is the prime supplier. They are used 
>in
>product studios that have large format cameras with scanning digital backs 
>and
>are also used to light 24-hour TV cable news sets. They have very accurate
>colour rendition, no flicker and are also very cool - in both senses of the
>word. They are also costly - $1,000US or more per unit and two are needed.
>
>If the light level is really a worry, I would suggest a couple of 
>Smith-Victor
>12" reflectors on stands and ordinary bulbs. Photoflood bulbs are accurate 
>at
>3200K and balance perfectly with most camera's incandescent settings. 
>However,
>household bulbs may be anything from 2400k up. A manual white balance 
>reading
>off a Kodak card is important for accurate reproduction of the manuscript's
>colour and any illustrations that may be on its pages.
>
>larry!
>ICQ 76620504
>http://www.larry-bolch.com/
>
>
>===8<===========End of original message text===========
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
>UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
>To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new 
MSN Search! Check it out!

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5