Copying a huge number of photos, by camera, not scanning

<p>I've taken on a project of archiving all of my family's pictures, from as far back as great great grandparents, on to your typical snapshots from the 1990's. I do not own a scanner personally (well, I have a $50 printer/scanner/copier job, but I've never used it to scan- I imagine the results will be lacking), but I do have a decent epson (1680 I believe) at work that I can use, but plan to think of only as a very last resort. </p>

<p>The plan is to combine these pictures with genealogy information into either a press-printed book or a bound album as gifts to my sisters for Christmas 2011. These will also be available to all of my extended family to purchase as well, but that is beside the point... </p>

<p>My problem lies with the multitude of pictures I need to copy, and the fact that I have to do it "on location." I'll be at at least 6 to 8 houses (parents, aunts, uncles, etc), copying what that family has at that house. There is no way I can take them to the work scanner. I do not even want to remove them from their home, so my plan is to set up a quick set-up production line that I can carry in, copy, and leave. </p>

<p>My plan is to set up my continuous light (cool florescent) and copy them using my fuji s2 (best model I have available, which is a crop sensor), and my Nikon 50mm 1.8, which has the best contrast and is the sharpest lens I have. Most pictures will be around 5x7 or smaller, with a few 11x14 or so. I'm most concerned with the smaller images, as that is what I have the most of. </p>

<p>I did a test today with the light set to the side (about 10 inches above the table), with a diffuser cloth over it, feathered across the image. I was getting 1/90 @ f/4.8 ISO 400. I did a few tests and it seemed like I was getting even exposure across the image. I plan to shoot raw with a custom white balance. I didn't get to really shoot today (we're still sorting images... oh my), so I wanted to take the opportunity to check my plan with you guys. I want to use a system that will give me the same exposure each time. I do have a hot-shoe flash, but the recycle time (or varied output) I see as being a problem. I want to be able to go bang-bang-bang so I make sure my up-down-motion is stabilized in at least one shot. I want to be able to take a picture, place it on the table, shoot, write down a description, repeat. Quickly and consistently. </p>

<p>I'm concerned about image quality. Would using a wider lens be better since it would allow me to get closer to the image, or is it a wash since I'm filling the frame as much as possible with whatever lens I use? Is this a valid set-up? Am I losing a significant amount of quality by copying using the camera rather than scanning? Do anyone have any tips on this? I'm used to doing restoration work from scans, and I'm not worried about that aspect, but it is going to be nearly impossible to redo this once it is done and I don't want to shoot myself in the foot from the beginning- I want to be sure to have a good image to start with. Most of the images will be used as 5x7 or smaller in an album or print, and I am prepared to properly copy (scan) those that will be printed larger, but my main focus right now is getting a production line of sorts down so I can get all these images digitized. <br>

My workflow will be to shoot an index frame, say "card one", then make a list of who is who as I shoot each picture, import in LR, name by "card one-sequence number." This is the first time I've ever needed to add a description to a picture (more than a keyword or tag)- for instance- in order from left to right, my 10 uncles named out in order. Can you add a paragraph to an image in LR3? Just curious on the last one...</p>

<p>Any help so I can do this right would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! Summarizing- a LOT of images to copy photographically in the best manner possible yielding the best digital image, develop a work-flow that will allow me to add detailed descriptions and keep it with the image as I sort. </p>

 

<p>Get a cheap copy stand that'll allow you to be sure your camera is square with your subject. Forget trying to hand-hold and forget using a tripod. Plan on lighting from two sides because your macro copy work will be much more uneven than you imagine or can see if you light from only one side. You'd be better off with a couple of cheap hardware store reflectors with plain household lightbulbs than with one soft fluorescent because you do need to light from two sides.</p>

<p>It's smart to use that Nikon prime rather than a zoom because it'll be more rectilinear.</p>

<p>I'm doing exactly the same thing, although I have the luxury of having all the material in the studio.</p>

<p>I second John's suggestion of a copy stand. It need not be fancy; you can actually make one yourself.</p>

<p>A small voice recorder can speed up the process. Put a changeable number in the corner of the image, outside the perimeter of the original photo, and key the voice notes to that number. I use little plastic digits in a holder.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>Well first, try the scanner/printer/copier, some of them are not too bad as a scanner for prints. They may do a much better job than trying to fudge up a copy stand with poor lighting.</p>

<p>With a std 50 1.8 you are may need extension tubes or bellows to get close to small photos. You will really need a copy stand setup with a minimum of two lamps at 45 degrees to the subject. There really is no way around this, and this setup has been in use for decades. A 50mm micro Nikkor is a much better choice for a lens, it is designed for flat field copying.<br>

Plan on 1-2 minutes per photo for estimating the time to do this with a decent copy stand and lighting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might rethink the scanner route as a concurrent possibility along with the DSLR and copy stand. I've undertaken similar projects and it's easy to underestimate just how important a fast workflow is.</p>

<p>First, take a look at the Fujitsu Snapscan series of document scanners. This will digitize at 20 prints a minute at 600dpi. You just have to keep the 50 page document feeder fed - stack another 30 or 40 prints when the hopper is down to a few prints. Just as important, the scanning software also automatically straightens crooked feeds and removes scanned area outside of the print proper.</p>

<p>The Snapscan works wonderfully as long as the prints are in reasonable shape, e.g., not tacked down into an album or gummy with decade old glue. Also, the largest print can only be 8.5in by 11in.</p>

<p>Second, look into USB powered flatbed scanners. Canon LIDE models are small, light, and just about $50. I haven't tried this, but it'd be worthwhile to see if a single computer can drive more than one of these concurrently. If so, plug four of these into the laptop then off you go. Load a scanner and push the scan button. One of the other three is bound to complete and be ready for a new print before the first scanner finishes.</p>

<p>Again, look for document-centric scanner software. You're more likely find packages that will auto-deskew and remove extraneous borders.</p>

<p>A laptop and scanner would be easier. But, I have shot old pictures successfully. John Kelly gave excellent advice, I highly recommend reading everything he said very carefully. </p>

<p>Unclassified section of documents in Vatican archives has 33 miles long of total shelf length of documents.<br>

<br />There is continuing effort to scan all those documents into electronic form and make them available internally on an optical media. Only small number of monks work on this task full time, and the estimated time needed to scan all of that was given as some 200 years.</p>

<p>Considering shorter real life span of current optical media, the optical media library could become useless before it will ever get finished?</p>

<p>Believe it or not.</p>

<p>Good one Frank, perhaps shes not catholic! Sounds like this project is more do-able.</p>

<p>Are these prints? Get a Canon 5600F Canoscan (less than $100.00 I think, and use it with your laptop. You will save yourself a world of time.<br>

If you are determined to go the camera route follow John Kelly's excellent suggestions to the letter. Just watch out for glare and flare. If you can work tethered , so much the better.<br>

Either Lightroom. Aperture (Apple's answer to Lightroom),Capture One's Expression Media ( formerly Windows Expression Media, and before that iView Media Pro), will do a bangup job for the database archiving, file naming, and keywording.</p>

<p>get a 100mm macro lens too. </p>

<p>Get ready for a huge amount of work. My cousin's mother died recently. My cousin had an album of around 50-60 B/W pictures of her mom and dad from back in the 1940's when her folks were just dating. She wanted to make a copy for her sister. (Well, my wife volunteered me for this assignment). She gave me the album so I had the luxury of being able to scan at home. I used my Epson V600 which has ICE to eliminate some dust and stuff like that on the photos. </p>

<p>Most of the pictures were stuck in the album under the plastic and were ripping when I tried to remove them to scan. I finally gave up trying. I couldn't take the pages out of the album so I had to hold the whole album down tight against the scanner glass scanning page by page. Because I was scanning through the plastic protectors, it often caused a little glare in places but you could live with it. Once in the computer I had to correct especially for contrast but I didn't do any spotting or marring corrections or corrections for fading. That would have taken too long and I'm not proficient in those things anyway. I then printed out the photos in album sheet form for insertion into a binder. I also created a video slide show using Adobe Photoshop Premiere 8 with big band music audi track from the 40's including Glen Miller to play on their HDTV or computer. That came out really great.</p>

<p>It was a labor of love and they loved me for doing it. But I spent many nights and many many hours putting it all together. When you get it done, and if you still have your sanity and not locked up in the <em>booby hatch</em>, let us know how it worked out and provide any tips for the rest of us that you learned along the way. Alan.</p>

<p>It's probably true that the 50/1.8 won't focus close enough....You're not doing "macro photography" (for which you might have preferred 100mm), you're doing copy photography: any copy stand will wobble/vibrate increasingly with increasing elevation... you don't want the very high elevation that 100 would require with your crop sensor, especially with anything over 5X7. Your 50 will probably not do the job full frame with photos under 5X7 and you probably do have a bunch of 2X3 and other little originals. Don't bother with extension tubes, a cheap "close up filter" will do surprisingly well...ie you won't lose anything from those drugstore originals :-)</p>

<p>I use a Pentax 35/2.8 macro with APS (crop sensor), which is the equivalent of full-frame 50/3.5 Nikon macro which I used to photograph thousands of originals from my old Durst 609 enlarger stand (tripod head instead of enlarger) and from an 800# Forox animation stand. If I was shooting full frame digital I'd prefer 50mm. </p>

<p>You do want fastest possible exposure with slightly stopped-down lens because you'll be dealing with vibration...simply locking the mirror up won't stop that. Therefore, especially given that Fuji's nice sensor, you should consider 400iso. You won't have a noise or grain problem.</p>

<p>You're likely to have occasional reflection problems due to cracked/warped originals and maybe the plastic covers somebody mentioned. That will require you to move your lights around. You do want to take a polarizer with you, though you may wind up not using it. The ultimate trick is to use polarizers ON the lights along with a polarizer on the lens.</p>

<p>Along with a copy stand it'd be good to have a sheet of steel and some magnets, ideally flat magnet strips, to hold bendy originals flat.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I’ve done this with a good quality DSLR and yes, it works out quite well and the quality is actually very good. I just ingest the raw shots into Lightroom and go from there. I’ve been using a 5DMII with 105 marco. I have a light box setup that works well for occasional work but if I were doing a lot of this, I’d setup a dedicated copy setup (lights), copy stand etc as mentioned above. While I have a pretty good flatbed (Epson V750), using the DSLR worked far better than I expected and its far faster than scanning. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone! You've given me some great advice.</p>

<p>I played around with my tripod today, and even though the ball-head and level made it easy to keep it parallel to the ground, I couldn't lower it far enough to fill the frame with a playing-card size image. I've done some internet research and think I can make a copy stand, but I have some questions about it. </p>

<p>First, I've never seen a copy stand so hang with me here. Do you want the camera mounted away from the vertical rail, or do you want it mounted nearly directly on it? I would think mounting it away from the vertical axis would make it less stable, but I didn't know if you needed the room between the two to make framing larger prints easier. Also, is there a simple way to make sure the print you are copying is directly underneath the camera, or is eyeballing center (say based off of a center line on the surface the print is on) sufficient? Will small strip magnets on the top and bottom hold curled prints, or do I need to look at attaching some kid of clip system to the base?</p>

<p>I'm looking at getting two lights so I can keep them at the recommended 45* angle to each side. I can't afford to put much into this project, so if anyone has any diy recommendations for the lights, I would appreciate it. Halogen lights get hot, right? Are incandescent lights ok, or should I look for leds or florescents? </p>

<p>I do have a cable release and extension tubes, so once I get the camera mounted on something sturdy, I should be good with close focusing and exposure. Any other tips are appreciated! I know I have a lot of questions, but I'm looking forward to building this and continuing with the project. </p>

<p>Thanks again everyone.</p>

<p>-Jen </p>

<p>I've scanned with laptop and small flatbed scanner, many photos at my kin folk's houses. Not very fast, photos in frames, albums of every sort, shoe boxes, every size photo from thumbnail to 11X14. There are treasures to be found though.</p>

 

<p>@Robert Lee - The Fujitsu Snapscans are reported to (a) damage photos and (b) have poor image quality in spite of being 600 dpi. Do you have personal experience using them for decent quality photo scanning?</p>

<p>@OP - John Kelly's advice is right on the mark, as are the recommendations to purchase a dedicated, used, inexpensive macro lens such as one of the 55/2.8's and the recommendation to use either tungsten lights or flashes. To this advice, I would add a couple more suggestions. </p>

<p>First, purchase polarizing sheets, orient them for minimum reflection, and just leave them in place rather than putting them on only when needed. There is almost no downside to leaving them on. They will be in place and working when you need to reduce specular reflection from irregularities in the surface of the print. Leaving them in place will save you considerable time.</p>

<p>Second, unless you need maximum resolution, don't worry about adjusting the distance for each shot to perfectly fill the frame. Group your prints roughly by size, set the distance and focus for the largest print in that set, and just shoot away. Avoiding the need to re-frame each shot will also save you loads of time. </p>

<p>Third, have someone to help you wrangle the prints in and out of their storage containers, albums, etc.. You can then concentrate on making sure the photography part of the process is running smoothly. </p>

<p>Fourth, use manual white balance and exposure. Set it at the start of your session for a white sheet of paper and just leave it there. Don't use auto WB or auto exposure. Use the lowest ISO available and record NEFs at 16 bpc, not 8 bit JPGs. </p>

<p>Using the previous workflow suggestions, you can easily snap one print every ten seconds or less, vastly faster than you can do with a conventional flatbed photo scanner and its control software. You will be limited by the speed your helper can get the prints in and out of their storage containers / albums, not by the speed of digitization. Considering the usual quality of family prints, the loss of quality by re-photographing vs a good quality flatbed scanner will be completely negligible, and you will gain tremendously in speed.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Fujitsu Snapscans are reported to (a) damage photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That depends on how the prints were stored. Like all "low volume" document feeders, the media is picked up and squeezed between rollers. The Snapscan paper path is actually amongst the most uncomplicated. Prints in the hopper on top flows out past the scan head and out into a collections bin at the bottom.</p>

<p>Okay, so if the prints came back from the drug store, were viewed once then subsequently thrown into a shoe box, they'll feed just fine. If the prints were tacked into an album, is gummy from tape, has pieces of old bubble gum stuck to it and is de-laminating, don't use the Snapscan. It'll jam the ADF, leave crud on subsequent prints, and just make your life miserable.</p>

<p>One great feature of the Snapscan is that it scans both sides of the print - automatically, and without slowing down. Date codes, processing parameters, handwritten love notes all get digitized along with the image on the other side.</p>

<p>I've had my Snapscan for, what, maybe 8 years now. Still on the original set of rollers (which is considered user replaceable consumable.) It's a great product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and (b) have poor image quality in spite of being 600 dpi.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Image quality is fine. It's comparable to any off the shelf, consumer level flatbed because aside from the excellent mechanical design, that's exactly what it is.</p>

<p>Don't worry about the scanning resolution. Anything above 300dpi is good enough for the typical mass photo lab print of the past three or four decades; scan at 600dpi because you're archiving and it isn't pain you want to go through more than once. But no, you wouldn't use the Snapscan for something that deserves the cotton gloves treatment, e.g., prints out of Uncle Ansel's collection.</p>

<p>Lastly, a <a href="http://www.vupointsolutions.com/PDS-ST410-VP.asp">handheld wand scanner </a>might be a good adjunct. I haven't used this particular model, but it's cheap enough to try out.</p>

<p>Robert, thank you very much for the detailed report. I had heard about these devices, but never knew anyone who actually used one. </p>

<p>To me, even if the quality of the scan is not quite as good as one from a photo scanner such as my v750, one of the most important uses of scanned images is the ability to easily add captions, keywords, dates, people, etc., and then be able to easily find specific images when needed. If at a later point, I want a better scan, once indexed in this way, it's then easy to pull the original and re-scan it.</p>

<p>A final question. Is the automatic file naming/numbering system in the software that comes with the scanner somewhat flexible? I have many ways I can renumber files after the fact (eg, in LR, using Photo Mechanic, etc.), but it saves me an extra step if I can enter a starting file name / number and the scanner SW automatically increments it.</p>

<p>Thanks again, </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... enter a starting file name / number and the scanner SW automatically increments it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's what it does.</p>

<p>Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. I probably should pick up one of these and try it for myself.</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>