Randy; Great advice for most who have never scanned nor dealt with digital photographs but I'd be willing to wager dinner that the photo in discussion is beyond the size that would be easily scanned therefore a good digital photo (preferably saved in "TIFF" format) would offer the best opportunity for a reasonable archival print either enhanced or unenhanced. Wouldn't you agree? Jack Wynn >Cousins, > >I've tried just about everything and still much-prefer scanning from the >original for archival work. Let me see if I can explain. Many people, even >those working with computers, misunderstand the differences between computer >graphics, printed graphics, and photographs. > >Your computer screen can only display 72-90 pixels per inch. To print a >quality photograph, you should use graphics that are at least 300 ppi per >inch. Of course the subject matter maks a difference. > >A digital photo (obtaining a good exposure) of Richard Winns portrait is >fine if all the decendants ever want to do is look at these results on a >monitor. With a good digital camera, you'll be throwing away detail to thin >the graphic so it will transmit faster over the Internet. It will look very >good to the human eye on a monitor which is backlit. BUT (and this is a big >but to me) you can't print this graphic worth a darn. Which means much of >the detail that was in the original, is not there anymore. > >The same is true for pictures published in books. They are printed in such a >way so they look like a photograph to the human eye by using small dots >leaving large spaces in between. However, it doesn't have the same level of >detail as did the original. The pattern I saw when looking close at the >Richard Winn Portrait makes me pretty sure it was commercially printed in >this way. > >If you take a 300 dpi scan from the original graphic and optimize it with >Photoshop, you can print it as good or better than the original and you can >zoom in on details with a computer and good monitor that weren't >distinquishable with the naked eye. > >I do historical and family research and pixel-level repairs to get all I can >from my family portraits. I even keep the original high-density scans of >family portraits in a separate folder on my CDs because someday someone >better at this than I am may want to try to do a better job--or technology >may improve part of the process. > >I hope this helps dispell the misconception that might arrise as you hear >someone, who knows much more about the media than you do, say adigital photo >would be better. They are thinking it would do for computer use but be >aware, they wouldn't be better from an archival standpoint. > >Randy C. Smart >www.ancestor-rescue.com > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "The Thill Group Inc" <ttg-inc@comcast.net> >To: <> >Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:50 PM >Subject: Re: [WINN] Portrait of Richard Winn > > > > I was thinking the same thing Jack, > > or even a video camera that allows for "still's" > > Cuz B > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jack Wynn" <jwynn@mindspring.com> >> To: <WINN-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:52 PM >> Subject: Re: [WINN] Portrait of Richard Winn >> >> >> > Any visitor would do better taking a digital picture of the portrait. >> > >> > Jack Wynn