Best way to copy pictures?

I was given a large box of family photos going back 100 years that I'd like to copy and digitize. I have the Canon 70D and 6D and a Tokina 35 f2.8 APS-C macro lens and a Tamron SP 90 f2.8 Macro lens , plus extension tubes. IF flash is needed I've got the ST-E2 and 430EX, 420EX, and the 380EX, I have several tripods and ball heads. How would you photograph pictures of old photographs,

If you use a camera you'll have to make sure it is parallel to and centered with respect to the photos, keep the lighting uniform and free of unwanted reflections, and make sure the photos stay flat. An inexpensive flatbed scanner, such as the USB-powered LIDE models from Canon, will take care of those issues and produce very good results.

I'd first try with a flatbed scanner, but if you want to photgraph the old photo.s try getting a copy stand.

Copystands & Copylights | B&H Photo Video

make sure the photos are flat, and you are centered and paralell to the photo.

I'd try to use the 100mm macro since it is more forgiving towards camera angling errors. - A flatbed scanner is indeed easier to rig up than a copy stand, but it takes longer to operate or get used to. If we are talking about a huge volume of work: get yourself convenient ergonomics! - With several tripods and ballheads it might make sense to cobble a drawing board on one of them to shoot horizontally at your eye level or take a darkroom easel and rig your kit up to shoot 45° downwards. A mirror helps figuring out if your camera is centered. Light should traditionally come from 45° angle but depending on paper surfaces you might need a different solution for some of the pictures.

Sort your pictures by size for assembly line shooting.

Before you start figure out how you are going to battle dust on the images and also try your very best to clean your sensor.

An inexpensive flatbed scanner,.., will take care of those issues and produce very good results.

 

When it works, the flatbed solution is by far the easiest. I wouldn't agree that it takes longer or is harder to get used to. Quite the opposite, I would say.

I agree the flatbed is the way to go. Depending upon size I do multiples each pass and they can later be cropped as individuals as time allows or need to print or edit requires.

You can digitize pretty quickly doing multiples.

If they are sorted in any way, most of my old photos were kept in their original development envelopes, all the better for a filing system and later retrieval.

Upon the flatbed discussion: Epson's latest is $600 and promising to be an amazing machine, especially as a rush-jobber. What I bought in the late 90s at a supermarket was cheaper and a disappointment. The Heidelberg Topaz they had at work appeared more time consuming than a copying rig.

If I had time to wait and money, I'd probably outsource a digitizing job to Scancafe for convenience.

 

For my personal, far from literally "everyday" needs the camera approach seems best suited. I own no working flatbed at all anymore. To pirate books' content for personal on screen use, I take elderly P&Ss. (I am too cheap for a decent smartphone or tablet) For serious work I have a copy stand converted enlarger column. If I had bet on EOS earlier, like the OP, I'd surely try shooting tethered. It seems to work quite well, even with an USB extension cord. I am just too cheap to repurchase a kit of macro lenses for Canikon just for tethering's sake.

Using flash is a good idea to avoid the faintest hint of camera shake that might occur despite using some kind of tripod. It also provides good (colors!) light and reproducable results. - I would not use TTL and prefer manual when it comes to assembly line work. Having a remote control to access speedlights inside brolly boxes is of course handy but you don't need modifiers to copy glossy prints. - In doubt acquire a used copy of "Light Science and Magic", a really great book upon lighting.

Camera advantages: no size limit, speed, ability do deal with any kind of image surface, better chance to handle books and albums, less bulk to haul for quick cheap dirty shots, familiar RAW converter for tweaking the image, no one trick pony collecting dust when the job is done.

A fairly cheap flatbed scanner has way more resolution than your 6D.

 

I have an Epson Perfection 3200, which I bought used and is way old technology.

It has 3200 dpi resolution, on an 8.5x11 inch scan bed. Epson figures this is 27200x37400 pixels.

 

A flatbed scanner uses a linear CCD and scans (that is why it is called a scanner) it across the image.

 

I believe it is a 27200x3 (the 3 being red, green, and blue) CCD array.

(Some scanners, more usually film scanners, switch the light source color instead of filter the sensor.)

 

Note also that scanners don't use the Bayer array, but instead sense red, green, and blue at each pixel.

 

On the other hand, I don't use flatbed scanners for 35mm film.

 

(You didn't mention having the negatives. It is much better to scan film than prints.)

 

There are scanners that use a linear CCD array across the width of a 35mm frame. Also, the optics

are much better when optimized for the 24mm frame width than the full bed width of a flatbed.

 

For a 4x6 print, with my 3200, I would get 12800x19200 pixels, still way more than the 6D.

 

A more modern scanner is the Epson V800. This one has two CCD arrays, one for narrowed scans

at 6400dpi, the other for full width at 4800dpi. This one can do a 4x6 print at 6400dpi, for

a 25600x38400 image.

 

But actually, those numbers are likely way more than the resolution of your prints.

Again, best to scan the original negatives.

 

As above, I personally prefer dedicated 35mm film scanners, but the V800 does a good job

with the 6400dpi sensor, so about 6400x9600 for a 35mm frame, still way more than the 6D.

 

With the 6D, you need to find a way to keep the print flat (maybe with a sheet of glass over it),

but then have problems with reflections. I suppose you could use an enlarging easel.

 

Then you need an appropriate light source. Two lamps, one on each side of a copy stand,

are usual.