Is shooting raw for photographing old pictures an overkill?

[ashishgarg]

<p>I have an opportunity to use an old DSLR (Canon XT to be precise) to photograph old family photos and was wondering if it will be worth shooting RAW vs RAW+JPEG. There are a lot of pictures and it will save me considerable time to just shoot JPEG and not worry about conversions from RAW. I am willing to go through raw workflow if it will help improve the quality for restoration and preservation. Most of the pictures are black and white (from 70's and 80's).</p>

<p>Also, any specific tips (like White Balance, exposure compensation etc.) that you guys suggest I should look into? I am working with bare minimum setup (camera and kit lens pretty much).</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your advice!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I've photographed old family photos for archival purposes. It's a pain in the neck to set up to do it right. Compared with setting up the photos or paintings square with the camera, lighting, etc., it's a trivial matter to set the camera to record raw/JPEG simultaneously. No reason not to take, literally, one or two extra seconds to set the camera to record raw.</p>

<p>A hot spot from glare, unnoticed during the shooting session, can't be fixed if you record JPEG only. Shoot raw as well and you have a better shot at recovering the detail.</p>

<p>Shoot raw and you won't need to worry about white balance now. It'll affect only the JPEGs. Shooting raw will give you far greater control over noise reduction (even my base ISO 200 Nikon D2H raw files need chroma noise reduction for critical projects).</p>

<p>Even with conversions to monochrome the raw file will give you great control over the conversion and a better chance at recording full tonal range. With older photos you may never get a second chance. I've re-photographed photos over a century old that were disintegrating even as we handled the photo for copying.</p>

<p>Another advantage to raw is that we can't anticipate every potential problem or solution. I'm reworking many of my raw files from 2005-2007 because not only is the current software better but my editing skills have improved.</p>

<p>Finally, recording media is cheap. In 2005 my 1 GB CF media cards cost $100 or more. Even if I could find a media card that small now it'd cost well under $10. At the current prices you can afford to dedicate a 4GB or larger camera media card to just this project, in addition to any other archiving you choose.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Have you tried scanning them in your printer/scanner? Some scan their 120 negs on a flatbed scanner/printer and you'd expect print grain to be larger than film grain.<br>

A non-issue with lighting, flatness, etc.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>If all you want to do is get them in an electronic format, as fast and as compactly as possible, then shoot just JPEG. However, if you are really looking towards restoring images, then I'd definitely shoot in RAW. No sense taking half steps there.</p>

[stp]

<p>A conversion is going to be made, whether by you if you use raw or by the camera's software if you use jpegs. If you choose to allow the camera to make the conversion, be sure that the camera settings you have chosen for jpegs is right for the job you have at hand. Look over the jpeg menu system, and see if the various choices make sense. Then I would shoot a few jpegs and evaluate the results. If you get consistent jpeg output that meets your criteria, then you've found yourself a way to save time. I think jpeg consistency and the extent to which outliers pop up that the jpeg settings don't handle as well as you could do yourself with raw should guide your decision. Can one set up an action for raw conversion? If so, that would speed the process, but allow you to quickly revert to manual if one didn't convert to your liking.</p>