I have many old photos I need to get into Lightroom. It seems to me that photographing them would be much faster than scanning. Has anyone seen or developed a nice technique to do this fast with good results?
Since I have many photos to do, I do not mind putting some work into a proper set-up for accomplishing this. I have a Tamron macro lens, a Tamron 18-270 zoom lens, an SB-700 with an sc-29 remote cord, a tripod, and a polarizing filter (if needed to reduce glare). Also have some umbrella's with stands if needed. Body is a Nikon 3100 but may have a 7100 by the time I do this.
I was wondering if you were still around.
A scanner is a more convenient automatic setup, and a scanner is pretty fast for small prints, designed for this, and I'd say more forgiving. I would be hard pressed to think of a reason to not choose the scanner for this (film may be a different story). But sure, the camera works fine. I'd say no big deal, just do it. IMO, the issues are the setup accurately near 90 degrees, and the focus of course, and that the lighting is not reflecting with glare. If not flash, you can see this in the viewfinder, but light angled off a bit. (Scanner is automatic on all of this). Camera is better than a scanner for any textured surface finish prints, scanner cannot control the lighting angle. It is an easier setup than copying slides. And for B&W prints, white balance is not an issue, so I'd say flash has no advantage for this. Probably harder.
For scanners too, processing of B&W should convert to grayscale, except maybe the sepia prints (grayscale may help them too). Menu named Grayscale, not the desaturate crap.
This processing should include tight white point and black point Levels too (individually done), grayscale needs more contrast than color. Even slight clipping, to insure there is a little something truly black and truly white in the image (most prints), which was Ansel Adam's prime rule. Makes a big difference on most prints.
Scanning: You do NOT want high resolution for prints (counter-productive). High resolution is for enlarging small film. 300 dpi scans are just right to reprint at same original size (and prints do not have resolution to reprint enlarged much - nothing like film). 300 dpi scans will appear about 3x original size seen on most monitors. 300 dpi scans are fairly fast. You are probably not reprinting, so 200 dpi probably works fine for the monitor (2x), however if doing the work, it might as well be 300 dpi. But a 6x4 inch 300 dpi print is only 2 megapixels... it does not need a 14 megapixel camera (35mm film can benefit however).
I remember doing a couple of hundred back in the day once, film camera, on a kitchen table with only the overhead room light. I had no macro lens with me, just regular lens. adequately close (I'd use the macro lens if I had it, but this is not at macro distances). Worked fine. Umbrella is OK, but not needed, it's for shadows, but the flat surface has no shadows to light. It is not portrait lighting, and lighting a little more distant makes the lighting very even and forgiving, and long exposure is no problem for a tripod. Just trying to say, no big deal, it works very well. I would call prints very easy to do (the 90 degree setup seems the hardest part).
