Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: latkins on January 31, 2007, 12:14:18 pm

Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: latkins on January 31, 2007, 12:14:18 pm
I have hundreds of old photo prints but unfortunately no negatives for these. Is it possible to set up a tripod and take photos of these with my digital camera so that I can download them onto my pc? I realize the quality won't be great, but they would only be shared with family and I can't afford to have them reproduced professionally and can't invest in a flatbed scanner because I just purchased a slide scanner for the other half of my project, which was to scan thousands of 35mm slides. Any suggestions out there on a solution to my dilemma would be most welcome!
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 31, 2007, 12:20:20 pm
A flatbed scanner is a much better idea than rephotographing. Flatbeds aren't that expensive.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: RonBoyd on January 31, 2007, 12:45:46 pm
Quote
Is it possible to set up a tripod and take photos of these with my digital camera so that I can download them onto my pc? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have found that photographing Prints is every bit as effective as using a scanner (I have a Microtek ScanMaker i900). Granted a Scanner is a little easier to use but the end result is the same -- both methods capture everything a print has to offer. (Assuming a 6mp camera -- I use a 7.1mp Canon G7.)

The most difficult steps in using a camera for this purpose is 1) holding the print and 2) getting sufficient amount of light. You have to build your own "tripod" to hold the camera parallel to the plane of the document. As far as light is concerned, I simply go outside and use the Sun -- any table will work to hold the "tripod" and the document flat. (Of course, this can be done inside with the Sun light through a window.)

Anyway, the answer is , yes.

Ron
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: peterpix2005 on January 31, 2007, 12:53:13 pm
Buy a cheap copy stand, use a couple of lights at right angles to the base and use glass to hold the prints flat. I have copied thousands of old photos that way

Peter
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 31, 2007, 12:56:48 pm
You'll have much less problems with reflectance, variable colour temperatures and maintaining sharpness by doing what Jonathan suggested: buy an inexpensive flatbed scanner. Once you have it, you would be surprised - you'll find yourself using it for other stuff too. Comes in very handy for all kinds of document preservation and transmission, especially combined with Adobe Acrobat.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Richowens on January 31, 2007, 01:09:54 pm
Jonathon is correct. One problem trying to photograph a photograph is flatness and light reflections. A flatbed will alleviate this. I am using Epson's 3170 for the very same thing, digitizing family photos from the late 1800's.

You can get their 3490, refurbed, which mine is, for $70 including delivery. I have had zero problems with their refurbed products.

Epson 3490 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540928)


May I also recommend Ctein's new book on photo restoration. It is a gold mine of information and techniques.

Rich
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 31, 2007, 01:11:39 pm
Even a cheap scanner can give you better results than rephotographing. A 600PPI scan of a 4x6 print gives you 8.64MP of true RGB image data (as opposed to Bayer-interpolated), and there isn't the hassle of setting up the lighting and all that crap. And if the prints are larger, you can still scan at 600PPI and downsample the image file to a reasonable size, which pretty much eliminates scanner image noise. I've done it both ways, and a scanner is simply a better tool for the job.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 31, 2007, 01:44:47 pm
Quote
....................May I also recommend Ctein's new book on photo restoration. It is a gold mine of information and techniques.

Rich
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While on the subject of books on restoration, not to be overlooked is Katrin Eismann's "Photoshop restoring and retouching 3rd Edition".
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: howiesmith on January 31, 2007, 02:09:52 pm
I have used both copy camera and scanner.  The scanner was far easier, producing a good digdtal file in one step.  I could do several without needing to adjust anything.  I even scanned two at a time a few times.

Multiply pass scanning and averaging works well.  Time really isn't a big thing because I can do other things while the scanner works away.  Changing origianls was very fast.

Using lights and a camera isn't as cheap as you might think, unless you already own lights with polarizer sheets, copy stand, etc.  

And, as pointed out befor, the scanner can be used for many other things.  I use mine a lot.  I also use it to color correct my monitor and printer.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Richowens on January 31, 2007, 02:29:19 pm
Quote
While on the subject of books on restoration, not to be overlooked is Katrin Eismann's "Photoshop restoring and retouching 3rd Edition".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, another excellent source of knowledge. I believe she is one of the pioneers in digital restoration.

Rich
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: John Camp on January 31, 2007, 06:26:25 pm
There's a Wall Street Journal article today (Jan. 31) in the Personal Journal section on this exact topic, in which it says that many people are using scanning services to scan old family photos. They mention Shoeboxreprints.com as one service, which will scan as many as 1,000 photo for $49.95. Others listed include Britepix.com, Digmypics.com, ScanCafe.com and Scanmyphotos.com. Most of them have resolutions of 300dpi, Scancafe is 600 dpi. Prices are all over the place, with a high of 49 cents per pic. I'm a little nervous about letting my pics out of my hands -- maybe I'd send them a third, spread over the years, then another third, and then a final third...But if you have a lot of photos, and they're only for family use, a service woudl save you a major pain in the ass...

The journal article also quotes a couple of people who had the service done at a local store, so you might check the yellow pages...

JC
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: larryg on February 01, 2007, 11:30:02 am
In doing genealogy research I got a hold of many old family (tin types and more) photographs.  I used a flat bed scanner   (try scanning in color even with b&w images as you will sometimes gives better results).

I printed out each image and also copied all of the jpg files to cd and sent a copy of the cd to family members.

This was so simple to do without any camera setup.  Results were quite satisfactory.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 02, 2007, 02:35:26 am
Quote
And, as pointed out befor, the scanner can be used for many other things.  I use mine a lot.  I also use it to color correct my monitor and printer.

That's one of the cardinal sins of color management, second only to thinking Adobe Gamma actually qualifies as a real monitor profiling tool.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: howiesmith on February 02, 2007, 10:45:31 am
Quote
That's one of the cardinal sins of color management, second only to thinking Adobe Gamma actually qualifies as a real monitor profiling tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98823\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice to know.  I was simply following the bouncing ball instructions for MonacoEZcolor.  Sin that it may be, it seems to be working quite well for me.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 02, 2007, 05:28:43 pm
How does one use a flatbed scanner to calibrate monitor? Do you duct-tape the scanner to the monitor like a really big calibration puck? How do you compensate for the curved surface of a CRT?
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: howiesmith on February 02, 2007, 05:37:18 pm
Quote
How does one use a flatbed scanner to calibrate monitor? Do you duct-tape the scanner to the monitor like a really big calibration puck? How do you compensate for the curved surface of a CRT?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No duct tape.  I use foil tape.

Actually, if you really care, find out how MonacoEZcolor works.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 02, 2007, 05:48:49 pm
The last time I checked, one either did a visual comparison (like Adobe Gamma) or used a colorimeter when profiling a monitor wit Monaco EZColor. Neither method involves a scanner. What on earth are you doing with a scanner to profile your monitor?
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: howiesmith on February 02, 2007, 05:56:02 pm
Quote
What on earth are you doing with a scanner to profile your monitor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you really concerned/interested or just trying to cause trouble or demonstrate how smart you are?
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 03, 2007, 03:53:42 am
You said you used a flatbed scanner to color correct your monitor. I'm just trying to figure out one would do that. It's not any part of the standard usage of MonacoEZColor, which you claim to use. If someone claimed they figured out a way to use cheese tortellini to cure cancer, wouldn't you be intrigued?
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: howiesmith on February 03, 2007, 08:59:55 am
Quote
If someone claimed they figured out a way to use cheese tortellini to cure cancer, wouldn't you be intrigued?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 03, 2007, 09:18:20 am
Jonathan and Howie

Both of you are being extremely childish wasting peoples' time trading barbs over what is supposed to be a website dedicated to education and awareness. For goodness sake GROW UP  

Anyhow all this useless banter tweaked my interest to simply do a fast search on Google for how Monaco EZColor can be made to calibrate a monitor without a colorimeter and here is the answer (from Bodoni Systems in the UK):

<<MonacoEZColor is a complete profiling solution which lets you calibrate your monitor, scanner and printer. Monitor calibration is achieved using a visual method. Monaco EZColor comes with an IT8 target which is used to calibrate your scanner and printer. What makes this bundle very good at generating printer profiles is the use of the IT8 target on the same print. This makes sure that your scanner is capturing the colours produced from your printer very accurately.

<<EZColor does not include a monitor colorimeter, but uses software controls to change monitor calibration (similar to Adobe gamma). EZColor is available as a bundle with Monaco OPTIX XR for more precise monitor calibration.>>

I happen to own a license to use Monaco EZColor which came with my Optix XR colorimeter. Where Jonathan is technically correct is that this software is not a  substitute for a good colorimeter. The results are completely unreliable because of the scanner interface, the need for perfect scanner calibration and the visual acuity involved in using what is essentially a souped-up Adobe Gamma approach (also generally speaking no good); I tried it for calibrating and profiling a printer and learned that EZColor with my scanner was far inferior to a good custom profile using a proper profiling package - and indeed far inferior to Epson's supplied profile for 4800/Enhanced Matte paper.

All that said and done, if by happenstance Howiesmith is getting results that satisfy him given his particular needs and computing environment, he has solved his own problem and that is fine for him, eventhough it isn't recommendable it in general.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on February 03, 2007, 02:40:44 pm
MonacoEZColor uses either a visual comparison method or a colorimeter to profile monitors. Howard says he's using a flatbed scanner to color correct his monitor. I'm just trying to figure out if Howard misstated his monitor calibration procedure and is using either the visual comparison procedore or a colorimeter, or is actually using a flatbed scanner in the process as he claimed. I understand how a scanner can be profiled with an IT8 target and then used to profile a printer, but involving a scanner in the monitor profiling process does not compute with me. Inquiring minds want to know.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: pixtweak on February 03, 2007, 05:09:09 pm
I am reproducing and retouching a series of very faded and discolored prints. All of these due to the wishes of the owner are to remian in their frames. This compromises the final results significantly, but also requires that I use a camera. I might add my personal view is using a camera or scanner is a toss up, and where a camera and propper copy stand/lighting might offer the greatest potential, for most people a quality flatbed scanner may be the easier and more reliable solution.

I wanted to mention that I took advantage of Kodak's free trial of their Digital ROC plugin V 2.0 . The print I tested was severely discolored. I compared my initial adustments to a copy corrected by Digital ROC. Regarding accuracey of color correction Digital ROC was better, and it appears to have reduced some of the mildew/unidentified growth on this particualr print. What I did not like about the Digital ROC adjustments is A) that it seemed to clip the highlights and shadow even though I backed off the "Contrast Ajustments" to 0%. B ) the adjustments are limited and particularly the "Brightness" adjustment I found to offer minimal control. Still it offers a quick option and one that can get you very close to where you want to be, from which you can make additional final adjustments. There are other similiar tools that others may want share their experience with. I still like to think if a tool can do it I can do it better, but that often means spending allot more time than may be justified for a particular job.

One more note these plugins are often bundled with the better flatbed scanners.

If you decide to use your camera and tripod keep these things in mind. The two biggest challenges will be even illumination of the print and eliminating reflections. Reflections can come from both your lighting source and reflections from the environment you are shooting in including your camera and tripod. Black masking tape is very usefull to cover up reflections from camera and tripod. A good way to eliminate reflections from the room or area in which are shooting is to place a large black cloth/backdrop directly behind the camera (idealy place the print on a black background as well). If this is more than you care to deal with, a polarizing filter can sometimes be effective as well, although I prefer to not use one.  If your camera has a spot meter, meter your print left, center, right from top to bottom a grid of 3 x 3 would be a decent starting point. Using an incident light meter at the print is very useful as well. The goal is to keep your readings across the print or work being copied within 1/3 of a stop of each other. That covers the basics I think, and also gives you an idea of why a flatbed scanner has its advantages.

Here are a couple of links you might find helpful:

http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/PhotoLab/...opyLighting.htm (http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/PhotoLab/KnowledgeBase/StudioLighting/CopyLighting.htm)

http://www.videomaker.com/article/6807/ (http://www.videomaker.com/article/6807/)
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: pixtweak on February 03, 2007, 05:38:26 pm
I am not sure that Videomaker article was the best. The music stand idea is fine, just be  sure that your work being copied is parrallel to the film plane. Focus, in particular edge to edge sharpness is critical. Using a cable release or timer release to reduce camera shake is highly recomended. Where I differ from the Videomaker article is that I would shoot straight on, not tilting the camera down or up. The first diagram from Cornell illustrates this, as well as propper lighting position.

A good focal lenght to use for copy work would me anything between 50 - 105mm. An f stop between f/8 - f/11 will usually provide optimum results.

I did not discuss color temperature of your lighting, which is another critical element obviously and another reason a flatbed scanner makes life easier. Hopefully you are shooting digital and your experience with white balance will allow you to address this.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: latkins on February 06, 2007, 02:41:04 pm
Quote
A flatbed scanner is a much better idea than rephotographing. Flatbeds aren't that expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Jonathan. I didn't realize the flatbeds were so reasonable, so I will get myself one. I already have a Nikon Coolscan VED on which I scanned all my 35mm slides, so now I'm into the project of scanning of all my old prints, both black & white & colour. Now the big question is which one? Because I've already spent so much on my Nikon, I need to keep the flatbed under $100. On researching the net, it appears the Canon CanoScan or Hewlitt Packard are popular. Can you recommend any of them for my purpose?
Cheers.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: latkins on February 06, 2007, 05:08:36 pm
Quote
You'll have much less problems with reflectance, variable colour temperatures and maintaining sharpness by doing what Jonathan suggested: buy an inexpensive flatbed scanner. Once you have it, you would be surprised - you'll find yourself using it for other stuff too. Comes in very handy for all kinds of document preservation and transmission, especially combined with Adobe Acrobat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Mark
What kind of flatbed scanner do you recommend (under $100) for reproducing old black & white & colour prints? I have Windows XP Home Edition system.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: larryg on February 06, 2007, 06:54:02 pm
Quote
MonacoEZColor uses either a visual comparison method or a colorimeter to profile monitors. Howard says he's using a flatbed scanner to color correct his monitor. I'm just trying to figure out if Howard misstated his monitor calibration procedure and is using either the visual comparison procedore or a colorimeter, or is actually using a flatbed scanner in the process as he claimed. I understand how a scanner can be profiled with an IT8 target and then used to profile a printer, but involving a scanner in the monitor profiling process does not compute with me. Inquiring minds want to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually a couple of years ago I used the Monaco system and in order to calibrate the printer 1.  you print out the chart on your printer  2.  use a flat bed scanner to scan the print  3.  upload the scan file to Monaco to calibrate with the It8 target etc.
This never seemed to work well for me.  Thank goodness for a maturing digital field that makes things a little easier to use.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 06, 2007, 07:20:24 pm
Quote
Thanks, Mark
What kind of flatbed scanner do you recommend (under $100) for reproducing old black & white & colour prints? I have Windows XP Home Edition system.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=99511\")

Under 100 I don't really know, because I haven't been in the scanner market for several years, when I bought an HP 5400c. It was more than 100, but not hugely expensive; however, they keep getting better and cheaper. For good in-depth material on how to chose a scanner go here: [a href=\"http://www.scantips.com/chap3.html]http://www.scantips.com/chap3.html[/url] and read the continuing pages.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: jorgedelfino on February 07, 2007, 06:39:50 am
Quote
Under 100 I don't really know, because I haven't been in the scanner market for several years, when I bought an HP 5400c. It was more than 100, but not hugely expensive; however, they keep getting better and cheaper. For good in-depth material on how to chose a scanner go here: http://www.scantips.com/chap3.html (http://www.scantips.com/chap3.html) and read the continuing pages.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

even a 3 in 1, (combination, scanner, printer, copier), like the canon PIXMA MP 150, will do a great job as a scanner, for a little over $ 100
Lights, copy stand etc will cost you more than that, will take longer to setup and probably you'll never use again, with the PIXMA, you'll have a nice brand new printer!
 
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Goodlistener on February 19, 2007, 11:00:00 pm
Quote
I have hundreds of old photo prints but unfortunately no negatives for these. Is it possible to set up a tripod and take photos of these with my digital camera so that I can download them onto my pc? I realize the quality won't be great, but they would only be shared with family and I can't afford to have them reproduced professionally and can't invest in a flatbed scanner because I just purchased a slide scanner for the other half of my project, which was to scan thousands of 35mm slides. Any suggestions out there on a solution to my dilemma would be most welcome!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It looks like the discussion may have wandered off a bit but I can share my own limited experience with scannning family photos on an inexpensive scannner. IT WORKS.

The scanner is a combo printer/scanner/copier Canon Model Pixma MP-150 which was recently discontinued. I got it free after rebates after buying a new Mac.  Retail is $100 even.  I have totallly ignored all of the complicates settings and "just do it".  It scans 3 of 4X6s at a time and puts them up in separate JPG files with no trouble at all. For those of us who like to control the technical details, there are a million different settings with color curves and various types of image processing that come with the scanner software.  Informed opinions in the various fora suggest that getting a raw or TIFF file of some kind and then using a specialized image management program (such as Photoshop) is better than using the bundled software.  My own experience is with photos that do not need "restoration" or with ones that may be a little bit faded etc but I just live with it.  

PS:Scanning a few photos does not take much time, but a lot of photos takes a lot of time.

Hope this helps your process.
Title: Reproducing Old Photographs
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 19, 2007, 11:04:58 pm
It really is a huge waste of time, effort and potential image quality to do this work with a camera, tripod, lights, etc. A cheap scanner will be much more efficient and most likely yield "higher quality per ounce of effort".