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

On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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


Scanner on high resolution?

On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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?

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.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/01/17 12:43, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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?

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.



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.

"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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?


Scanner on high resolution?

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.

On 28/01/17 11:44, wrote:
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

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

On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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

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&_trkpa rms=aid%3D555014%26algo%3DPL.DEFAULT%26ao%3D1%26as c%3D20151005190540%26meid%3D651dc6e8d8534c869cba06 0132b1855f%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 {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 11:44, wrote:
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

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

https://s29.postimg.org/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 13:38:45 UTC, NY wrote:
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, ...
https://s29.postimg.org/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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

John Rumm 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.

+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

Nige Danton wrote:

as extension tubes are just empty tubes they are inexpensive to buy..

Depends if you buy ones filled with Kenko air or Canon air ...

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 11:44:47 UTC, wrote:
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

Hold a camera lens backwards in front of your camera. It works.


NT

On 28/01/17 13:38, NY wrote:
"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 11:44, wrote:
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

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.

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.

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/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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 didnt 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

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:25:17 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 28/01/17 13:38, NY wrote:
"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 11:44, wrote:
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

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.

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.

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/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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!

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%

On 28/01/2017 15:43, Andy Burns wrote:
Nige Danton wrote:

as extension tubes are just empty tubes they are inexpensive to buy..

Depends if you buy ones filled with Kenko air or Canon air ...

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

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...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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


Scanner on high resolution?

"Graham." wrote in message
...
This is a quick photo with my mobile phone

https://s29.postimg.org/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

Remarkable clarity, but not surprising for a Daguerreotype.

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.


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!

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.

Done that. It works best if the neg is a bit under-exposed.

On 1/28/2017 1:12 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 28/01/2017 11:44, wrote:
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

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&_trkpa rms=aid%3D555014%26algo%3DPL.DEFAULT%26ao%3D1%26as c%3D20151005190540%26meid%3D651dc6e8d8534c869cba06 0132b1855f%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)



+1, even the lower resolution ones can give remarkably good images.

You don't say what sort of camera you have. Do you know anyone with
better kit? Is there a local photographic club? They might have a
facebook page, you might find someone who relishes the challenge and
would ask for no more than beer tokens, if that. Whereabouts are you?

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:06:27 UTC, newshound wrote:
You don't say what sort of camera you have.

2 MP digital pointnshoot. It was very good in 200? something.

So far I've got as far as (all the same image)
http://i63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/n4hbv5/9
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg

Which hopefully will be good enough for the immediate future. If I have time and inclination later I'll try a scanner at the library (and/or ask them about local photography groups)

Thanks

Owain

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 13:38:45 UTC, NY wrote:
"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 11:44, wrote:
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

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

https://s29.postimg.org/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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.

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 29/01/2017 20:07, NY wrote:

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"

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 {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

wrote:
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

After getting the photo,an expert or even not(if you learn how) can then
enhance and add to it with gimp or that commercial one.

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 20:07:39 UTC, NY wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
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/svoyf1dl3/20...2548_small.jpg

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.

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 :-)

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 Monday, 30 January 2017 05:30:37 UTC, F Murtz wrote:
After getting the photo,an expert or even not(if you learn how) can then
enhance and add to it with gimp or that commercial one.

I've twiddled the brightness/contrast in Irfanview which has helped a bit.

Owain

On 1/28/2017 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:06:27 UTC, newshound wrote:
You don't say what sort of camera you have.

2 MP digital pointnshoot. It was very good in 200? something.

So far I've got as far as (all the same image)
http://i63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/n4hbv5/9
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg

Which hopefully will be good enough for the immediate future. If I have time and inclination later I'll try a scanner at the library (and/or ask them about local photography groups)

Thanks

Owain

I could see these earlier, but Tinypic isn't letting me in now. My
impression was that you might have captured just about all that you are
going to get.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/28/2017 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:06:27 UTC, newshound wrote:
You don't say what sort of camera you have.

2 MP digital pointnshoot. It was very good in 200? something.

So far I've got as far as (all the same image)
http://i63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/n4hbv5/9
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg

Which hopefully will be good enough for the immediate future. If I have
time and inclination later I'll try a scanner at the library (and/or ask
them about local photography groups)

If you've got the photos out of the locket, you've got the opportunity to
use a scanner without the problems of a) images not being directly on the
glass and therefore being out of focus; b) looking through glass of the
locket.

The photos you've taken here look out of focus - and I think it's your
camera rather than the prints which is out of focus, given that the
heart-shaped borders are out of focus too. But a scanner should not suffer
from that problem. Make sure you use the lid of the scanner to press the
photos flat on the glass.

A scanner may well give better results than photographing with a camera -
even with a better lens - because it will make sure that the whole field of
view is equally sharp, whereas cameras tend to go out of focus at the
corners if you are photographing a flat plane at a close distance.

Good luck.

On 1/31/2017 5:12 PM, newshound wrote:
On 1/28/2017 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:06:27 UTC, newshound wrote:
You don't say what sort of camera you have.

2 MP digital pointnshoot. It was very good in 200? something.

So far I've got as far as (all the same image)
http://i63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/n4hbv5/9
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg

Which hopefully will be good enough for the immediate future. If I
have time and inclination later I'll try a scanner at the library
(and/or ask them about local photography groups)

Thanks

Owain

I could see these earlier, but Tinypic isn't letting me in now. My
impression was that you might have captured just about all that you are
going to get.

Typical, it has started working now. Given their size, they are not bad
at all. Your focus could be improved, but I still think there might not
be very much more detail in the original. As you point out elsewhere,
tweaking brightness / contrast may find a little bit more.

The macro ability of compacts does vary quite a bit. It's probably worth
increasing the distance until the edge of the photos is sharp. While you
lose on pixels you may gain more on focus. Was this hand-held? Even if
you don't have a tripod or a copying stand you may be able to rest the
camera on two small stacks of books, then use the delay timer so that
camera shake settles out before the exposure. More light is another
thing which may help, it will shorten the exposures and may increase the
f-number. You might try a couple of small halogen desk lights or LED
torches at 45 degrees, and in opposite directions. The flash is probably
in the wrong position for macro, but you may be able to scatter it
towards the object with a little bit of white card at an angle, or
tissue or cotton wool. Also, use the lowest ISO that you can.

On 1/31/2017 5:44 PM, NY wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/28/2017 8:04 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:06:27 UTC, newshound wrote:
You don't say what sort of camera you have.

2 MP digital pointnshoot. It was very good in 200? something.

So far I've got as far as (all the same image)
http://i63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/n4hbv5/9
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n4hbv5.jpg

Which hopefully will be good enough for the immediate future. If I
have time and inclination later I'll try a scanner at the library
(and/or ask them about local photography groups)

If you've got the photos out of the locket, you've got the opportunity
to use a scanner without the problems of a) images not being directly on
the glass and therefore being out of focus; b) looking through glass of
the locket.

The photos you've taken here look out of focus - and I think it's your
camera rather than the prints which is out of focus, given that the
heart-shaped borders are out of focus too. But a scanner should not
suffer from that problem. Make sure you use the lid of the scanner to
press the photos flat on the glass.

A scanner may well give better results than photographing with a camera
- even with a better lens - because it will make sure that the whole
field of view is equally sharp, whereas cameras tend to go out of focus
at the corners if you are photographing a flat plane at a close distance.

Good luck.

Agreed, the scanner should be good for keeping them flat and the
illumination will be even. Use it in "flat-bed" mode, though. Don't try
to use a sheet feeder! If you can adjust the resolution, try something
like 600 dpi. That will give you huge files for A4, but a smart scanner
may be able to ignore the blank area. If not, it's easy to crop that out
using Paint. Worth scanning both in colour and in grey-scale.

It will *probably* save files as JPEG. .PNG and .TIF may be useful
formats. .BMP files are huge because they don't use compression
algorithms. In theory, you may lose some detail with the compression of
a JPEG, in practice it may be very hard to detect any difference.

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 17:44:12 UTC, newshound wrote:
The macro ability of compacts does vary quite a bit. It's probably worth
increasing the distance until the edge of the photos is sharp. While you
lose on pixels you may gain more on focus. Was this hand-held?

Yes.

I've also tried with the 7 MP camera on the tablet which gives fairly good results.

Sadly the urgency of the request (for elderly relative) no longer applies.

Owain

wrote in message
...
Sadly the urgency of the request (for elderly relative) no longer applies.

How very sad.

On 31/01/2017 17:57, newshound wrote:

It will *probably* save files as JPEG. .PNG and .TIF may be useful
formats. .BMP files are huge because they don't use compression
algorithms. In theory, you may lose some detail with the compression of
a JPEG, in practice it may be very hard to detect any difference.

With something that small you don't want any compression.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 1/31/2017 8:07 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 31/01/2017 17:57, newshound wrote:

It will *probably* save files as JPEG. .PNG and .TIF may be useful
formats. .BMP files are huge because they don't use compression
algorithms. In theory, you may lose some detail with the compression of
a JPEG, in practice it may be very hard to detect any difference.

With something that small you don't want any compression.


Given the funding cuts, I've no idea what the OP may find available in
his library. Yes, ideally you'd want a raw file from a full frame DSLR
with a 1:1 macro lens. But that may not be an option.