4 ms·

Perhaps there was a discount for allowing him to use the photo in the blog post? Also, I'd say that $500-$1000 is comfortably in the "want" (rather than need) r

• mgkimsal 15y ago
  Agreed in this case, it's probably a want. I wasn't suggesting this person paid $500 - the post I replied to was asking what this sort of procedure might cost, and I was replying in the general sense. Interesting to think how many tintypes may be out there still, and what can really be done with them. Even just using the camera and strobe like he did, without the hours of touchup work, seems to do quite a lot of good. Perhaps that's a cheaper service people could offer over the 'scanner' solution.
  • tylerritchie 15y ago
    >Even just using the camera and strobe like he did, without the hours of touchup work, seems to do quite a lot of good. Perhaps that's a cheaper service people could offer over the 'scanner' solution. Most good labs offer this service. Sadly, most also charge as much or more to take the shot as they do to scan. Often labs will charge based on digital resolution and ignore the ease or cost associated with obtaining that image. If you were able to shoot prints in RAW and then again with the same camera and position only in IR you could automate a lot of the dust and surface scratch removal with minimal loss in fidelity [1]. Really, a modest investment in time and available consumer technology could allow an enterprising individual/company to outfit themselves very well for performing print archival/restoration at reasonable rates. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cleaning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cleaning