photographing flat art.

<p>My sister has come across a large cache of very old photos in a lot of different sizes. By old, I mean 100+ years in many cases, probably all of them are 50 or 60+ years old. some are probably in frames and such that I will not be able to remove them from, but I hope that most will allow me to remove the photo, shoot it, and return it.</p>

<p>In the past, when I have scanned stuff like this, I have been less satisfied as when I have done a photo on some kind of copystand.</p>

<p>I don't have a copystand, was thinking of getting an inexpensive one, I have a couple of diffusable lights I can borrow (video lights) so I might not have to buy them.</p>

<p>Y'all think I'm doing this right? I have a 16MP camera, a VERY nice 40mm (35mm equiv.) standard lens, and a REALLY great 110mm (35mm equiv.) macro.</p>

<p>Pitfalls? Tips? Ideas? I'm not new to this kind of thing, but will probably only have the chance to do this one time with these. I think I know what I need to get it right, but am hoping that y'all can help me be 100% positive.</p>

<p>My V750Pro is unbeatable for the task.<br /> Unless you want silver prints from them, digital scanning is the way to go.<br /> My only problem are the big photos, which doesn`t fit into the scanning area.<br /> --- <br /> To shot photos and drawings , I settled on a big grey steel easel, made by Delta. I have it hanged on the wall. The originals are held by magnetic bars, there are frames and centering lines marked on the easel.<br /> It lets me to use either large format or smaller cameras on a tripod for copy work. I prefer this way to the usual copy stands.<br /> But again, nothing like to use the V750Pro. Faster, easier, no lightning pain, no alignment problems, etc.</p>

<p>My experience, and I've had a lot of it, is that a relatively high-quality flatbed is far superior (for flat images) to direct copying with a camera. The one exception, as said, is if you want to go to film.<br>

A few points:</p>

<ul>

<li>Copystands are surprisingly expensive.</li>

<li>Lighting is difficult.</li>

<li>Ordinary camera lenses have considerable curvature of field that makes them poor for copying flat objects. Special copy lenses, reversed lenses, or enlarger lenses are better, but not as sharply in focus, edge-to-edge, as a flat scanner.</li>

</ul>

<p>By the time you've got a copy stand, a flat-field lens, maybe bellows, lighting that will be even across the image, and other necessary additions, I doubt that the direct-to-camera option will be significantly cheaper and may well be more costly than getting a good flatbed.<br /> A CanoScan 9000 latest model is about US$175. I have one and it produces very decent output for the sort of images you are talking about.</p>

<p>If the photo sizes are reasonably large, and you have a tripod with which you can splay the legs or place the photos on a support, I've found that I rarely, if ever, need a copy stand (I've copied lots of 1890-2015 photos from family members). Flatness and lighting are the keys to getting it right. As you don't want reflections off the surface of the photos, generally lighting at 45 degrees from the horizontal, each side of the photos works pretty well. Personally I prefer a longer focal length macro lens to give me greater flexibility in framing and flatness of the field....usually I use a 90-105mm macro lens on my Nikon DSLR, or a shorter lens on my mirrorless body. Occasionally, due to surface imperfections on the photos, I've had to use a polarizing filter. The hardest part of it, IMHO, is getting the focus right...so if you have a 90 degree viewfinder accessory, it can make things easier. From experience, typically using lower ISO, a cable release will be necessary in conjunction with the tripod to eliminate shake. I usually take 3-4 shots to ensure I get it right, since, like you, I sometimes won't have future access to the photos. Due to deterioration of some of the original photos, sometimes a lot of post processing is needed. An annoyance I've had is sometimes the pattern of the paper used in the original photo is very evident, and I've had to slightly introduce blur to eliminate or reduce it. Likewise, sometimes the images are heavily stained....in the example from 1898, of my great-grandmother & grandmother, which was printed on a 1 inch button, I had to crop and convert to b&W with a heavy orange filter to reduce the stain.</p><div></div>

<p>The issue I notice(d) with inexpensive copy stands: it is not easy to align the camera on them. The axis of the tripod thread was critical. I'd try to use the 110mm equiv lens to minimize that issue but there we are hitting the field of ergonomics. Can you place the stand on your desk and shoot tethered with onscreen preview? Or will you have to move the originals with your toes while bending over your viewfinder? The great copystand I worked with projected a focusing & framing aid on the original and I only had to reach up to slide the Leica in place and rewind it. the stand even switched the lights off while it projected. I believe it had a 60mm lens. 110mm are significanly longer and maybe (depending on originals' size) out of your arms reach while working on a table. Will an inexpensive stand go high enough to allow using your long lens? Have you done testshots of scale paper with your standard lens or dedicated software to battle its distortion?<br>

Everything bing said; I can't be bothered to get a scanner either. My experince with early inexpensive ones was just too bad.</p>

<p>Yeah, can't afford an expensive scanner, have a cheaper one that does nice. I just find the results from scanners less "photo-ey" than using a camera. I found that even with a really expensive scanner that I had where I used to work.</p>

<p>The lens would be my 55mm f3.5 micro from Nikon if I can get the photos far enough away. The field is really really flat on that lens. I am shooting with a mirrorless, OMD EM-5. The depth-of-field issue with that format should help on this, and it looks like, from tests I've done, I can stop down to f8 without diffraction penalty, even on µ43. Full-time live view, plus a 2second delay (rather than a remote) should make focusing and shooting without vibration easier.</p>

<p>I can make a faux copystand with a tripod to do some testing, too.</p>

<p>Most of these photos are surprisingly clean in terms of stains so far.</p>

<p>I don't know what "photo-ey" means but a flat bed scanner is superior in every way from both an imaging perspective and an ergonomic perspective. The ergonomics should be considered if the project is large. Using a scanner is <strong>far</strong> easier and faster if you have a wide variety of sizes you are imaging. Where a camera/copy stand comes in handy is when you have over-sized prints that won't fit on the scanner glass or you have extremely warped or fragile prints that would be damaged by flattening them on the scanner glass by the lid. </p>

<p>as mentioned above, a scanner is a good thing. epson v500 or v750 are cheap and easy to use and a start. of course there are better products as the hasselblad immacon but this really depends on the amount of money and time you want to invest as scanning of film really is a science itself.</p>

<p>i use the v750.</p>

<p>do not let yourself be fooled by any dust removing algorithms and mechanics.<br /> they do work quite nice because the scanner is using infrared light but sometimes it does mess things up.</p>

<p>do try to get a propper scanner, the epson v500 and v750 come with different masks for many different negative sizes.</p>

<p>get a good scan and use photoshop or lightroom to clean things up.<br /> photoshop - healing brush - contant aware and stamp tools if needed.</p>

<p>you should be able to grab an epson perfection v500 from ebay for around 50-100 dollars.<br /> it comes with a software that you can update from the homepage or even get it there.<br /> unless you do not want to make highqualtiy fine art prints id say the epson v500 is a good thing to start.<br>

i only got the 750 because i lucked out :p <br>

keep an eye open for good deals.<br>

do check if the masks that have glass and the glass of the scanner is scratch free.</p>

 

<p>Don't use diffused light for flat copying Peter. The harder the light the better. Reflections can then be controlled by angling the lights properly. Standard configuration is approximately at 45 degrees either side of the artwork. This configuration works whether the artwork is under glass or not, as long as the lights are outside of the reflection area of the glass - which they should be anyway to get low falloff.</p>

<p>Contrary to what many people will doubtless claim, you do <em>not</em> need crossed polarisers or any other such nonsense. Just 2 small flash units or hot lights will do the job, unless the artwork is very large, in which case you might need 4 lights to get even coverage.</p>

<p>Having said that, I'm not sure why a flatbed scanner would be unsatisfactory - as long as it's not a cheap and nasty CIS type. The older moving fluorescent tube type scanners give vastly superior results with shiny artwork. The only issue then would be one of contrast or tone curve adjustment to get a more snappy looking copy. There's no magic ingredient added by the copy going through a camera lens. It's all going to end up as digital data anyway.</p>

<p>BTW. If you do decide to go the camera-copying route, there's an easy way to align the camera parallel and true to the artwork. It's called "auto-collimation". You just need a small flat mirror without a frame. Place the mirror in the centre of the artwork or copy board, then adjust the camera until you can see its lens reflected dead centre of the viewfinder in the mirror. Job done!</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe,</p>

<p>TONS of good stuff in that post, thanks. That mirror idea had occurred to me.</p>

<p>I have an older Epson flatbed that I will try and use at least to compare and see what I get.</p>

<p>1. Plus 1 on Peter's appreciation of Rodeo Joe's mirror technique.<br>

2. Plus 1 on the scanner. It's the best way. I've had great results on a $75 scanner.</p>

<p>One possible reason for the camera copies looking more "photo-ey" to you is precisely that those images may be unsharp in the corners and also have a fair amount of vignetting.<br /> Although some old pictures have those effects, on purpose or not, they are more of an effect used today to suggest "olde tyme" images.</p>

<p>I've always had good luck with scanners, and would use that for any photos that can be scanned.<br>

Almost any decent articulating tripod should do for those that cannot. My illustration is a Slik 400DX with a full frame camera and 50 mm. lens. Same setup for DX and 35. If you carefully square off the floor or other surface, and plumb the camera, you'll have a very versatile copy stand. If you control reflections, digital copying hardly cares what light you use as long as it's even. <br>

Another possibility for a cheap copy stand, if you can find one, is an old photo enlarger. Many of these were made purposely with a 1/4 inch stud to hold the enlarging head on, so that they could double as copy stands. </p><div></div>

<p>+1 for scanners, they dont use bayer sensors so they have better detail</p>

<p>Another point is that a copystand and camera may produce a better image of a photo with surface texture than a scanner which often does a lousy job with lustre-type prints</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another point is that a copystand and camera may produce a better image of a photo with surface texture than a scanner which often does a lousy job with lustre-type prints</p>

</blockquote>

<p>THIS is what I mean by what I tried to say earlier.</p>

But even a cheap flat bed scanner has a much higher resolution than any DSLR.<br>No problems setting up lights to get even illumination using a scanner.<br>No problems either aligning the camera and the photo when using a scanner.<br>No problems keeping the photo flat.<br>A scanner takes up less space, and works considerably faster.<br>Unless there is a good reason not to (can't think of one), i'd always use a scanner for this type of work.

<p>Exactly how large is a "large cache" of photos? A cheap flat bed scanner might have higher resolution, but a DSLR will copy each image 50x to 100x faster. <br /><br />Some sheets of polarizing filters in front of the video lights might help reduce reflections off the photos. But mounting lights at a 45 degree angle will help that too.</p>

<p>If you only have a couple of hours with the photos, a good DSLR setup might be the way to go.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lustre, silk or any other deeply textured-surface print <em>might</em> present problems to a standard copy-light setup as well. You may have to drop the copy-light angle to something like 30 degrees (to the artwork). Simply polarising the lights won't work unless the camera lens is fitted with a crossed-angle polarising filter. For most straight copying jobs this simply isn't necessary though.</p>

<p>A decent scanner will be factory set to present its fluorescent tube at 45 degrees to the surface of the scan, as seen from the sensor point of view. Myself, I've never had any surface glare problems when scanning photographic prints. And a camera copy setup needs to be in a dark-painted room to be sure of not getting reflections from the camera and other room surfaces. Not many people want to paint their spare room black just to get a few high-contrast copies! OTOH, its dead easy to back the artwork on a scanner with a sheet of black card to minimise print-through.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A scanner takes up less space, and works considerably faster</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and absolutely NO!</p>

<p>The camera method takes ~ 1/125 per print and maybe 5 seconds per 'change'.</p>

<p>...a High-Res scan of a 7 x 5 inch print will take well over 30 seconds and easily up to 1 minute.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The camera method takes ~ 1/125 per print and maybe 5 seconds per 'change'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I dunno Mike. With a variety of sizes, surfaces and condition issues, the exposure may take 1/125th sec but setting each image up, unless all the same size and type in fine condition, between print placement, camera magnification and exposure adjustment, critical focusing, watching vibrations, moving lights, flattening corners I think 5 secs/per is optimistic. And how many hours are you hunched over this hot copy set before fatigue sets in.<br>

I've done copy jobs both ways. Sitting relaxed at my desk/easy chair and scanning, often while I have an Xfinity movie playing in a corner window of my monitor, is a much nicer process with better quality results.</p>

<p>Louis. All very valid points. I too have used both methods.</p>

<p>I use the tethering in CCP2 option of AF and Shoot in Liveview. Exposure doesn't change very much at-all. Twin flashes , one to each side, at ~45 deg, 2 meters away on manual 1/4 power gives me about f5.6 @ 1/250. I usually use my Tammy 60mm on a D5200.</p>

<p>The flattening is indeed the most notable difference.</p>

<p>If you have truly flat prints, I'd use a copy stand, particularly if they're same size. No adjustments needed. The same applies if they're stuck down in an album that won't go flat on a scanner platen.</p>

<p>However, if they're loose, curly cornered and a bunch of odd sizes, my oldish Epson 4990 does a good job.</p>

<p>Horses for courses really.</p>