photographing pencil drawinfs

[eggbert_frazzle]

<p>Hi i was wondering if you guys could help me, my task at work is to begin to archive a load of very important architectural drawings. Most of these drawings are pencil sketches onto paper no bigger than A1. However some of these drawings are very light and cannot be clearly seen and some maybe very detailed. My job is to make a digital archive of these drawings and develop a cataloging system for them.<br /><br />We are about to buy a high resolution scanner to scan to most important drawings however for now we just need reference images of each drawing for the catalogue and hence have decided to use a camera along with a tripod mounting next to some sufficient lights.<br /><br />I use a Nikon d100 and have finally setup the tripod and camera to line up with an A1 page. My question to you guys is what format should i begin to save these images as, jpegs, raw, tiff etc.<br /><br />Also as some of these drawings are very fragile some post production may be needed to darken the lines via photoshop.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Most archivists, I know, store their images in TIFF format because they are a text file representation of the image, and can also be compressed if needed. Depending on whether the drawings are in monochrome or color, you may want to try using different filters to enhance the lines, rather than having to photoshop them. For example, you might find a 25A/R60 red filter might help.</p>

[eggbert_frazzle]

<p>the drawings tend to be coloful and are usually on detail paper, which is a thin yellowish tracing paper. <br>

i have a mini booth setups with a few spot lights shining at equal distances away from the image, </p>

<p>can you suggest any specific settings i need to change my camera to?</p>

[rick_dorn]

<p>This is a tough thing to do well with a camera. As you have noted, a good scanner is the right tool for the job. That being said, I would shoot raw and save reworked files as TIFF, as Michael suggests. The Lighting is more important than the camera settings, once you get the exposure and white balance down. I think I would try underexposing, with oblique lighting about 60 degrees off the camera axis, and cross-polarize it to further reduce glare and boost contrast.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Digital scanning of architect drawings and sketches goes back 20+ years; ie pre windows think DOS era.<br /> <br /> The one I got back in 1991 scanned at 400dpi across a 36 wide width; with up to a 10 ft length.<br /> After scanning into a group 4 tif file one would place these one 5 1/4" floppies; 3 1/2" floppies, or a zip disc; or ona BBS.<br /> <br /> Your question is like asking if there is a portable telephone; digital camera; or asa 800 print film! :)<br /> <br />**** Try a **local** repro/print/blueprint shop that deals with this; since it is such an ancient task done every day for several decades.<br /> <br /> A modern scanner has alot of settings to pull out pesky thin lines; and even has greyscale modes.<br /> 36" wide scanners in full color came out about 15+ years ago; these can be used to scan marked up color drawings.<br /> <br /> Normally folks who do this for a living do NOT use a camera; they do this for dead sea scroll stuff only. Even the old scanners from about 20 years ago will scan 2 to 3 D size per minute (24x36").<br /> <br /> Using a camera is the hard way; plus one often does not have enough resolution. There are about say 50,000 + scanners like this probably in use. I own 3 of them. *alot* of engineering and architect firms have them; court houses. Scanners that do this are on their 4th to 5 generation now.<br /> <br /> Here I have probably scanned about 100k+ drawings like this.<br /> <br />****Check a local print or repro shop before reinventing the wheel. Scan to them is like corn in Iowa; it is what they do. Using a camera is like making a tractor from scratch; when folks already have tractors!<br /> <br /> Scanning this type to tiff files goes back *BEFORE* digital cameras; before photoshop; before photo.net; *before the internet* It goes back to the pure BBS days at 9600 bps; Xmodem; pure pen plotter days when a 386 was king of the hill.<br /> <br /> Fathom that the first 36" scan-printer I got was about 58,000 bucks with 386; and one is scanning 36" wide at 400 dpi; MORE than your D100!<br /> <br /> No sane scanning shop will quote without seeing the originals.<br /> <br /> One might have super easy stuff that one can scan 6 per minute at 600 dpi; or the dead sea scrolls that are a moldy mess and in pieces like a puzzle and super fragile.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>If you must use a camera; do not use jpeg which is TERRIBLE for line work.; use TIFF or RAW and convert to TIFF.<br>

<br /> Unless one has super fragile stuff; all a local shop has to do is feed in the color sketches in a scanner; it is real easy.<br /> One gets a RGB image.<br>

<br /> Scanning B&W is even easier.<br>

<br /> Unless color is important; there is no reason to scan in color; it makes the file sizes huge with useless bload.<br>

<br /> A clean new 24x36" line drawing scanned in as a group 4 TIFF at 400 dpi at 1 bit is only about 1/4 megabyte; maybe 1/2 to 1 with a super busy detailed dirty drawing with crud on it.<br>

<br /> A real greyscale scan might be done for artsfartsy stuff; then the file might balloon to 3 to 20 megs. Do it in color and one then gets giant files. Our 36" wide 600 dpi color scanner for a detailed map might be used at 400 dpi; and one gets files that only 1 or 2 will fit a CD; ie they are HUGE.<br>

<br /> A commerical scanner has many settings; one can run a despeckle option and it removes the crud; it bumps up the signal to noise ratio and makes the file more practical.</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>You don't ask directly, but here's a hint: If you're going to do any of this with a camera instead of a scanner, then put the camera in manual, not autoexposure. Most drawings are mostly white, but the camera's meter will try to make them gray. Worse, autoexposure will use slightly different settings for each drawing, depending on how much ink is on the paper and where it's distributed.</p>

<p>If you're photographing them using consistent lighting, then you'll get consistent results by putting the camera in manual mode. Ideally, meter using an incident meter or a gray card, but lacking that, some eyeballing it will do. If you expose consistently in manual mode, then at least you'll have consistent exposures that can be post-processed consistently in a batch, perhaps using one saved "curves" setting.</p>

<p>But a scanner is really the right tool designed to do this.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Good points from Richard about exposure!<br /> <br /> Using a camera is doable if one can pick up the details.<br /> <br /> Using a dslr *tends* to be more done for pesky stuff that is 3D; mounted, dead sea scroll type stuff; full color renderings too.<br /> <br /> If the drawing is to be "sucked/brought" into the modern CAD world via say using "import the TIFF file as a layer in cad"; one has the issue with orthogonality; ie squareness. There are some programs where one can force/correct the blueprints/vellum/renderings distortion so the dimensions jive in CAD. This is often done say where an old building is modernized; and Architects use some ancient drawings to start from.<br /> <br /> Eggebert; sorry for being abit negative; I too use a camera at times where my scanner will not work.</p>

<p>With a terrible original with uneven fading; there can be also no combo of camera or scanner setting that captures all details; and one here can scan it in sections; this is a PITA and involves labor; thus charge more for your time too!</p>