Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.
It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.
I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.
Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.
Steve B
For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.
|
When Ken Burns photographed the half plate some years earlier for his Baseball documentary, he gave me a copy of the transparency he generated. I loaned it out some years later and the person I loaned it to lost it. When Jerry Richards told me the image Mark generated (the one Mr. Mancusi used) from another transparency I had (from another photo shoot for another project) was of insufficient resolution, I had the idea to contact Kens Burns to see if he had a high resolution copy that I could use. I no longer had Ken's contact info so I turned to John Thorn, who knew Ken well. Ken did in fact have a very high resolution digital image of it, which he was gracious enough to provide me. I in turn sent it on to Jerry Richards. That was the practical solution to give Mr. Richards what he required. Photographing daguerreotypes is extremely difficult. It takes a skilled photographer to produce a high quality reproduction of a dag. Ken's photographer did a superb job, and using that image was easier and more cost effective than having it reshot.