Dear Randy, What your saying is correct and should be known... but I think that most of us were trying [and failing] to give a solution in the situation you laid out. Which if I understand right [could be major-ly mistaken], that you could not take the photo off the wall, and lay it on a scanner, basically all that could be done was a "drive by shooting" with a camera. ... so with that thought, that is why most of us were talking about using a camera or some such equipment, that could be hand held and would not upset the place. Of course the ultimate would be to take it and get a good scan off of it.. but I didn't think that was possible..... But going away from that subject, moving on to pictures in general I totally agree with what your saying..but I was a bit surprised that you scan at 300 because I scan all of my photos at 640 dpi [you were saying ppi, but my scanner doesn't give that option] of course keeping those in a separate file then the rest because of the size... then for web work when it is needed I lower that to the 190 range for ease of loading. Cuz Becky ttg-inc@comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "R.Smart" <rsmart@olypen.com> To: <WINN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:31 PM Subject: [WINN] Computer graphics vrs. photographs > 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 > >