Camera-copying old photos, versus flatbed scanner

[ed_okie]

Canon 5D, 100mm macro lens, noteworthy tripod and copyboard setup, lights, etc -

old-photo copy results are sharper from the camera than when copied by a HP

4570c flatbed scanner (about 3-4 years old, set at highest scan capture). Has

anyone experienced similar comparative results?

 

Downside of the camera-copyboard method is labor and time intensive, versus the

scanner's "push-button" results (and direct onto hard drive). Quality is the

objective; irregular volume of incoming old pictures can easily turn the

copyboard method into agony. Is the Canon 5D + 100mm macro "the best?"... or is

a new scanner called for?

[sarah_fox]

That's my preferred method of copying prints too. I've done a lot of this work with ancient B&W photos -- both family photos and photos I plan to use in a future photographic project. I don't personally find using a camera any more difficult than using a scanner. If anything, I prefer the camera, because it grabs the image much faster. As far as quality, the camera will give you many more bits of color depth than the scanner, with the exception of some scanner models that generate 16 bit color depth (e.g. some of the Epsons). Your HP probably scans in 8 bit, but check the specs. The relative sharpness will depend on the size of the original image. A large image might come out sharper if scanned. A small image will probably do better when copied with the camera. Interestingly, I made a large blow-up of a wallet-sized photo of a woman that came out quite sharp. She had died long ago, and her son didn't have a single photograph of her, as all of the family photos had been destroyed by an angry relative. Fortunately we did have a couple of shots to copy for him.

[mendel_leisk]

We're running an older 600 dpi scanner at 300 dpi, for most, for digitizing photos. We hav a few photos that look to be medium format contact prints, that benefit from going to 600 dpi. This is with Vuescan, outputting 16 bit per channel rgb raw tiffs, and then using these files for Vuescan's scan-from-disk.

 

I've not tried photographing prints in years, but I strongly suspect the flatbed results, especially coupled with the control and options of Vuescan, are superior and more flexible.

[JeffOwen]

You asked this question a few days ago http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ow9b I guess my answer is the same as before; Use a flatbed for convenience reasons.

[m_barbu1]

Perhaps that's because your camera is effectively a 3170 dpi device, whereas your flatbed scanner is only 2400 dpi?

[PuppyDigs]

I've had much better results coping small prints with an Epson flatbed than my 5D. I also

copied slides with my 5D and found my old CanonScan FS4000US gave far better results. The

camera is better for larger artwork, e.g., paintings or posters.

[dave404]

Unless the picture is very large I use my Canon 9950 scanner. I can also fill the platen with photos and run automatically crop and straighten photos and quickly process a bunch of them. You need a bright white background for it pick out each shot.

 

For larger stuff like my grandparents wedding portrait I set up my studio strobes on either side of the print to illuminate it nicely and then just shot and processed. I tried taking multiple cans with scanner once and merging them together, but that was a nightmare.

[ed_okie]

Resolution, tonal control, and overall sharpness - exiting HP scanner and a try with a low-end Canon scanner... neither could match the Canon 5D and 100mm macro in output quality. Will try a higher-end Canon 8800F unit with greater bit-depth capability, possibly that's the answer.

 

Scanned direct (existing scanners) into Adobe CS3 with the WIA driver seems to give better quality than when using scanner-included software, but still doesn't match direct photo method with the 5D camera. Volume of pictures is the issue, the flatbed scanner is quicker, less nit-picky than the camera-copyboard setup.