Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Converting Old Photographs to Digital
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="yauman" data-source="post: 351945" data-attributes="member: 15418"><p>For lighting, one bright light source like the SB700 won't do. If you must, use a ring light. But most copy work of this kind are done with a copy stand and 2 lights <a href="http://www.ephotocraft.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=029144021740" target="_blank">like this</a>. A very thin non-reflective glass will keep the photo flat if necessary. The light bulbs to use are 300-500watt 5500K fluorescent bulbs meant for studio work. If the photo is too fragile to take it out of the frame, we have success leaving it in the frame and photographing it with this setup as long as we remember to use a linear polarizer on the camera. (Modern CPL's wont' do as a good job as they are not as effective.)</p><p></p><p>A super-zoom like the Tamron 18-270 won't do - too much edge distortion. (Also when hung upside down, there's always "zoom creep!") We use the Tamron 60mm macro for most "normal" size prints and go to 50mm or even 35 mm for large ones.</p><p></p><p>If you are a Lightroom users, shoot tether and with a remote shutter release. </p><p></p><p>FYI, this method of copying old photos do not produce as good results as high resolution scanning. This method is preferable to scanning if you have the following situations:</p><p>1. All your photos are the same sizes - 3x5 or 4x6 etc than it's easy to setup for just one and then snap away. Much faster than scanning. But if your photos are all different sizes, you'll need to adjust camera and lights every time the size changes. You will be surprise with old photos - not all 3x5 are actually 3x5 - you'll find that if you stack up a handful of 3x5's from years past and snap away, you'll be cropping some and leaving slivers of borders on others. Remember, depending on how old or how many years span of photos you have, you have to deal with border and borderless prints! So, post-production cropping cannot be avoided in most instances. </p><p>2. Your photos are too big for scanner.</p><p>3. Photo too fragile to be handle, ie cannot be removed from frame (image surface stuck to glass) or have too much creases to scan well. </p><p></p><p>High resolution Scanning is always better but it's slow and tedious.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="yauman, post: 351945, member: 15418"] For lighting, one bright light source like the SB700 won't do. If you must, use a ring light. But most copy work of this kind are done with a copy stand and 2 lights [URL="http://www.ephotocraft.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=029144021740"]like this[/URL]. A very thin non-reflective glass will keep the photo flat if necessary. The light bulbs to use are 300-500watt 5500K fluorescent bulbs meant for studio work. If the photo is too fragile to take it out of the frame, we have success leaving it in the frame and photographing it with this setup as long as we remember to use a linear polarizer on the camera. (Modern CPL's wont' do as a good job as they are not as effective.) A super-zoom like the Tamron 18-270 won't do - too much edge distortion. (Also when hung upside down, there's always "zoom creep!") We use the Tamron 60mm macro for most "normal" size prints and go to 50mm or even 35 mm for large ones. If you are a Lightroom users, shoot tether and with a remote shutter release. FYI, this method of copying old photos do not produce as good results as high resolution scanning. This method is preferable to scanning if you have the following situations: 1. All your photos are the same sizes - 3x5 or 4x6 etc than it's easy to setup for just one and then snap away. Much faster than scanning. But if your photos are all different sizes, you'll need to adjust camera and lights every time the size changes. You will be surprise with old photos - not all 3x5 are actually 3x5 - you'll find that if you stack up a handful of 3x5's from years past and snap away, you'll be cropping some and leaving slivers of borders on others. Remember, depending on how old or how many years span of photos you have, you have to deal with border and borderless prints! So, post-production cropping cannot be avoided in most instances. 2. Your photos are too big for scanner. 3. Photo too fragile to be handle, ie cannot be removed from frame (image surface stuck to glass) or have too much creases to scan well. High resolution Scanning is always better but it's slow and tedious. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Converting Old Photographs to Digital
Top
