scans from older photos

[Hinkelbein]

(If this is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to where it belongs.)

The last two days I've been leafing through pictures from 1990-1999, the pre-digital camera era.

I don't want to be rude, but why are most (not all!) pictures of bad quality? I take it that the real pictures are not that bad and that is has everything to do with the scanning process?

I have great pleasure in it seeing what planes and what companies landed at AMS in the period 1999-1999. Thanks to everyone for uploading these older pictures

[LX-A343]

There are different things to take into consideration:
a) old photos uploaded some years back: the sites standards are a bit higher as some 5 years or so back.
b) rare photos are treated differently than the umpteenth KLM B767 at AMS for example, or LX A320 at ZRH .

Scan quality varies with quality of the original, the scanner used and of course post processing which is a bit different than post processing of a DSLR photo. I have screened scans, where you could hardly see a difference from a DSLR photo.

[wrxflyer]

Scan quality varies with quality of the original, the scanner used and of course post processing which is a bit different than post processing of a DSLR photo. I have screened scans, where you could hardly see a difference from a DSLR photo.

Agree with that 100%

It all depends on the overall quality of the original photo.
If a printed photo is just a little bit soft- for example- it will appear on a wide screen as completely rubbish.
As you see, scanning older slides is a big part of my winterseason and I have more than 1000+ prints ready for upload on JP.

But,as Gerardo said,it depends on the quality of the print and the rarity in database.

Freek

[seahawk]

Especially as 400ISO film scanned looks really bad compared to ISO3200 or something on a modern DSLR. And for people living in the cloudy parts of the world, ISO400 often was the choice for aviation photography and fast jets.

[PMN]

Naturally if the original image isn't all that good then the scan won't be all that good either. Editing a scanned image can be quite different from dealing with images from digital cameras, and I think that's partly where people can go wrong with them. You have to treat a scan 'as a scan', and not as an image from a DSLR. I've seen some terrible scans, but like Gerardo I've also seen some that have been every bit as sharp and clear as any DSLR can produce. It depends on how good the original is and how good the processing is. A good original image and good processing will give good results.

As far as accepting lesser quality scans is concerned, as Gerardo says it's a case of how rare it is. Scans from 10 or more years ago aren't just ordinary images, they're history and it's only right they should be preserved. Personally I'm more than happy to see a slightly lower level of quality for the sake of having some old and rare gems in the database.

Paul

[Hinkelbein]

Thanks guys for your elaborations on this.

I absolutely love these older photographs. When taking pictures now, we often don't realize that a particular plane may be completely out of service in ten years or so.

Keep that history coming