I use a digital camera quite frequently in my work. Many of my customers give me old snapshots that were printed using "matte" finish. This type of finish produces a pattern of white dots when scanned, so I photograph the image instead. I use the macro setting, and a copy stand to get the best shots.

I've also used the camera to shot overly large photographs, and then piece them together.

In these instances, I've made several comparisons, between a scan and photograph of the photo, and in most cases I go with the photograph.

Everyone has been more than pleased with the results.

Oops, the camera I use is an Olympus 2020.

GOOD info Vikki!! I shudder when I have to scan the textured photos. That is an excellent tip.!!! Did you build your copy stand or purchase it? Tom

Speaking of copy stands...

I was browsing the Internet and found this site with instructions on how to build your own.

Build an inexpensive photo copy stand (http://www.frontiernet.net/~rjacob/copystnd.htm)

-T

I purchased mine - no woodworking skills here. Plus, I like having several adjustment levers, to make sure everything is on the correct level.
Regarding "leveling", instead of using a mirror as that site suggests, you can purchase a very small, round level. I think I got mine from Home Depot.
I rarely use bulbs. I setup in front of a window, adjust my camera settings, and use my remote (so I don't have to use the flash).
The only drawback, and this is minor, is that I can only do this during the day.

T. Paul, Thanks for the link---looks like I am going to get to play with power tools again!!! Hope I will still be able to count to 10 using using my "counting aides" without having to take off my boots! Tom

Vikki, do you notice any problems with artifacts such as noise etc, when using the camera, and do you find that you must sharpen images imported into your image processing program more than from a flat bed scanner? What is the megapixel count of the 2020, around 3 or 3.25 isnt it? Sorry about all the questions, I am simply addicted to knowledge!!Some day some of it is actually going to stick between my ears! Tom

Very interesting thread. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent trying to find the "definitive" answer on how to scan those "satin-" or "linen-" finish photos. My friend who was involved in Operation Babylift (see that story over in Critiques) has about 40 photos that she took herself which really need to be archived.

In the process of trying to figure out the best way to get a digital image, I have bought two additional scanners. (Thank God for eBay!) I was told that 1200 optical dpi scanners (which I had one of) pick up too much texture, but that 600 optical dpi wouldn't pick up as much. Not true from my experience. I bought (and returned) one of the ultrathin CanoScans on a recommendation that because of the CIS technology (as opposed to most scanners' CCD technology), the lack of any depth of field would help eliminate the "white dot syndrome". Again, not true in my experience. I tried a polarizing sheet at any number of different angles (both the sheet and the photo) to no avail. I tried velum and wax paper - also to no avail. The only thing I haven't yet tried (and which I will try on one of my OWN childhood photos) is vegetable oil or glycerin (glycerin is water based, so much easier to clean up!) rubbed onto the face of the photo to "fill in" the nooks and crannies. I have to try just so I know if it actually works or not, but there's no way I'll do that on anyone else's photos!

In addition to trying everything I could think of with scanners, I had 35mm copy negatives made at three different high-quality photo labs in town because I wondered if I should just purchase a copy stand and do that on my own. (I have a film scanner, so can scan the negative directly.) As it turned out, one of the labs did a scan/print for free to show me the quality and I have to say that the contrast and detail in the shadows was MUCH better from the scan. It was not particularly crisp however, and after purchasing the same scanner used by that lab, I realized it's because they had the descreening value set all the way up. (Blurs out the white dots, but also the detail in the photo.) It doesn't look too bad when printing the 3x3 photo in the same size, but I'd really like the option to enlarge some of them and so far I haven't found a way to do that without the "texture" getting in the way of the actual photo.

SO, that's a long-winded way of saying that perhaps I need to ask some of my friends if they have a 3M-pixel digital camera that I can try. (I don't have the $$ to go out and purchase one for myself.) Perhaps a digital camera would produce better results than a traditional 35mm copy negative?

Jeanie

Guess what folks. Yesterday, I threw away a copy stand that I made.:bawling: It was very much made like the link plan. The difference was that instead of making the sliding arm, I used a black pipe "T", which had to have the threads filed out so that it would slide on the vertical piece of pipe. A hole was drilled through the side of the "T", and it was threaded to accept a T-bolt. This was used to secure the camera support so that it wouldn't slide down once it was in position. In fact, I think I still have the pipe parts in the garage. If anyone is interested in seeing what I'm talking about, I'll take a shot of it to display for you. I made mine around 1980 or so, and I *never* had to worry about the camera being in line with the photo. It was rock solid, and weighed a ton! Most of the time I used lights at a 45 degree angle to the print. All of the images that I sent in to the archives were copied on this stand. I used a 35mm camera, a 645 camera, and a 4 X 5 camera on the stand for copy work.

Tom,

Now you know one of the things that was in the walk-in closet! :depressed

Ed

Tom - I can get a "zero compression", 5 meg TIF (1600 x 1200) with the camera. It's hard to answer the sharpening question... I don't believe it's that much softer than a scan.

To tell you the truth, like Jeanie, I've tried everything without luck, I have to be satisfied with this.

If I can find two comparison shots on my system I will post it, otherwise, it may take me a week to get to it - if you're interested.

Originally posted by Vikki
If I can find two comparison shots on my system I will post it, otherwise, it may take me a week to get to it - if you're interested.
I for one am VERY interested! Whenever you have time would be greatly appreciated! -Jeanie

Hi! I have been trying to find a way of working with these papers also.They were very popular years ago and now some labs are using lustre paper as their standard matte. The reason being proffs can not be copied well.

I've had some luck scanning and using gausian blur then usm. It can be hard to blend though.

ED!!!! ARRGHHHH......Oh well, domestic tranquility has priority but aint it the truth that you will never need something until you throw it away? JEANIESA, Before shelling out big bucks for a 3+ megapixel unit which will probably still pick up the textured paper anyhow, have you tried using soft illumination of the picture by putting cheese cloth over the front of a directional light then taking a shot?( As in cheap clamp lamp type--lets not get too fancy) Perhaps by manipulating the lighting you could eliminate the texture caused problem. I dread working on those types of photos as I have not been able to find ANY WAY using a flat bed scanner to eliminate the texture or even reduce it much without degrading the scan. Another thought; Have you tried placing a sheet of clear glass between the photo and camera--perhaps with that and lighting manipulation it might soften the texture somewhat. Just a few mildly disoriented musings---Thanks, Tom

Tom,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear on the results with the copy negative. In fact, the copy negatives had NO reflection at all from the finish. I'm almost sure the labs used polarizing filters on the lights to reduce glare on the photo finish. The problem with the copy negatives was that the resulting contrast was even worse than the already near-non-existent contrast in the original photos themselves. Specifically, the copy negatives couldn't pick up the details in the shadow areas. And, because the contrast and sharpness is so poor in the original photos, the copy negative only exacerbated those problems.

So, what I'm hoping is that perhaps the digital camera won't have the same restrictions on contrast that film does and can pick up more of the detail in the photos. Don't worry, I'm not going out and buying a 3MP camera! I've GOT to have a friend SOMEWHERE who will let me borrow one - I HOPE!

Jeanie

OOPS....I misunderstood. We of the bovine persuasion sometimes fall victim to that ailment! Keep us informed of your quest results! A solution to that problem would be greeted with cheering and dancing in the streets! OK, the VIRTUAL streets. Tom

There will certainly be dancing and cheering in my PHYSICAL street if I ever figure this out! :D -Jeanie

Jeaniesa, Have you tried any filters besides the polarizing type? In Astrophotography many folks use certain of the "colored" filters to enhance faint Planetary detail etc. with good results .Just a thought, Tom

Tom, No, I haven't tried any colored filters, though I did wonder briefly about that idea. Can you provide a little more detail? I've never taken a photography class (I will be this fall, finally!), so I'm not real clear on the use of colored filters. Are you talking about using them on a camera (copystand) or on the scanner (between the glass and the photo)? -Jeanie

Jeanesia, Check out this: goto; TELESCOPE.COM>ORION TELESCOPE AND BINOCULAR CENTER>main page will open, SELECT TELESCOPE ACCESSORIES from the menu at the top of the page right side,>select FILTERS> and finally select ORION COLOR PLANETARY FILTERS. There follows a good description of what each filter is used for, what it enhances etc.. In Astrophotography the filters are usually mounted seperate from the camera in either motorized "filter wheel" devices, in frames which are manually removed and inserted or in "sliding bars" which allow linear mounting of as many as 5 or 6 filters which can be slid in front of the camers lens. May be a "dead end" but.... Tom

Jeanie and Tom,

I don't think there will be any benefit from using the colored filters if the photo to be copied is B&W. A red or yellow filter is commonly used with B&W film to enhance (darken) a light blue sky. But, as always, don't take my word for it -- check it out!

Ed

Ed, The majority of the Astro CCD cameras are BW with only a couple of exceptions. To get color the "target" planet or whatever is shot through colored filters, usually RGB although there has been some experimentation with CMYK ones. The greyscale images are then combined to produce the color composit. I was thinking that since we use the greyscale images in the channels pallete to find the one with the best "look"(exactly like the greyscale images shot thru the filters of the Astro camera) perhaps this methodology could be adapted to using the colored filters to enhance the "whatever" in J's photos. Sometimes teasing detail out of a shot of Jupiters clouds or subtle details of the Martian landscape or clouds can be done by this method. Only a stab in the dark though. Thanks for the info!!! Tom

I've been playing with a technique I first heard about over a year ago, involving scanning through some sort of diffusion material such as vellum, onionskin, etc. I've had mixed results.

The idea is if you have a satin/linen/textured photo you place it on this paper, scan through the paper, then use curves to bring back the tonality. The diffusion quality of the paper fills in the textures.

The good news is: it works.
The bad news is: the threads in the paper are at least as bad as the photo texture

I've experimented with other materials. It looks like some sort of plastic will be required. I actually got very good results scanning through a white kitchen trashbag, but the plastic was so limp it added wrinkles.

I've actually been shopping at art, craft, and drafting supply stores trying to find the ideal material. It should be threadless, textureless, white (no colorcast), translucent, and thin enough so that focus isn't a problem. But it also needs to have some stiffness so it won't wrinkle when sandwiched between the photo and glass.

I was looking forward to posting my discovery as a great new tutorial, with before/after, screenshots, etc. But I've not been able to find the right material. Now I invite you all to explore and experiment. The ideal material will be something with a specific brandname and model number, so there's no guesswork for others to do.

i wonder if something the texture/consistency of the plastic that covers the graphics tablet would work.

if so, i have been racking my brain to think what would serve as a replacement for same,(i have an annoying scratch on mine, need to replace) it reminded me of something, and have about decided it is xray film. pretty stiff. it's blue though, but transparent. would that matter?

Kathleen:

Are you talking about plastic to draw through? Blue won't matter for that. In fact, some folks put paper on their drawing pads to provide a more natural 'feel' for their drawing. I think that's why the pens have replaceable plastic nibs, in case they wear down from working through non-slick surfaces.

mmmhmm.

the plastic to draw through. i know the color wouldn't matter for that, but thought the surface and rigidity might lend itself to the use you're talking about. except for the blue?

The blue would disqualify it. Plus it might be too transparent.

Originally posted by Doug Nelson
I was looking forward to posting my discovery as a great new tutorial, with before/after, screenshots, etc. But I've not been able to find the right material.
Hmmm - I had exactly the same idea. Been working on it for 4 months :dizzy: and I haven't given up yet! You gave me a couple other ideas - what about frosted glass or glare-proof glass (used in framing art.) Have you tried either of those? If not, I'll try to find some. If so, I won't waste my time. ;)

Jeanie

Nope, I haven't tried any glasses, mostly on the assumption that they were too thick and might cause focussing problems. But now that I think about it, that might actually be an advantage.

Let me know how it turns out :)

Well, I know for a fact that straight plate glass does not hurt focussing - but it also doesn't eliminate the unwanted reflection off of the textured surface. :( I'll let you know if I get any better results with frosted glass (aka sand-blasted, I think.)

Has anyone tried an infrared blocking filter? Just another shot in the dark perhaps. Tom

I can think of 2 ways to eliminate the “noise” (white spots) in the textured paper. Pre digital manipulation it was done with a copy stand and a polarise over each light. I never owned this expensive set up, but used to put a photo in a glass bowl of water to copy. I needed to adhere it to the bottom to keep it flat. You need to be familiar with the type of photo, because if you use this method on an unsuitable print you could damage the photo.

I now do something similar with my scanner. I get a cup of water and I gently rub the whole photo with wet fingers until the whole lot is damp but no visible water on the surface. I just rub any wet areas until they are absorbed by the print surface. Then scan it.

Remember to be cautious. Try out an unimportant corner first to make sure that the emulsion isn’t lifting.

I can send a before and after sample if some one lets me know the URL for posting it.

Sally Cowell

sally,

i know there'd be keen interest in your results.

to post it, just see beneath the message section of "post reply" where it says attach file; click browse and chose your file; just be sure it is <102400 bytes.

eagerly awaiting your post.

Here is how I get rid of noise when scanning a textured photo. The original was a postcard size and a bit curled. I dampened it in order to flatten it and discovered dampening also got rid of most of the noise. I’m 63 and these papers were around when I was printing negatives before the days when colour became so popular.

Always try out an unimportant corner. Some older papers will flake off when handles this way. Sally Cowell

Wow Sally! That worked out pretty well! Thanks for sharing the tip. As always, be cautious when trying something like this.

Ed

thanks sally. i am sure gonna try it, got a drawer full of meshy ones. messy meshies.

Well now that the xmas rush is over and santa has gone home for another year, I have some time to devote to discussions such as these.
We have been copying photos for about 40 years and usually we use the following:
Double polarized light, thats 2 lights with polorizing filters over both lites (IN THE SAME PLANE) and a polarizing filter over the camera lens. (this alone will increase the contrast of the print and will get rid of any silvering) An SLR type camera so you can see the reflections disappear as you turn the lens filter. Some type of stand for the camera, copy stands are really neat, but some tripods can be used. If you are using film, then you need to find a good film/developer combination. Regular BW films do not work to good especially if the photos contrast is already low. We used Kodak TechPan with Dektol paper developer for years. Ultra fine grain, fast and you could drive the DlogE curve almost vertical if you wanted to.
Since we started using digital, we have found that the results can be a little flat, but the curves in Photoshop do a great job of correcting that and its faster than having to do a reshoot.
For the various textures of paper, starting the lites at a 45 degree angle and then moving them around a bit usually takes care of the little reflections. However for that print whose surface looks like a coblestone street, then the pan of water is highly recommended. In fact try two pans, the first takes off the excess dirt, the secound to photograph in. Do get the owners permission first! :)
If you do not have a digital camera, then I would suggest checking with your local photo studios to see if they have the equipment and knowledge to do the job for you. I do this every once in awhile for someone, sometimes we just do a trade out instead of $.
Using different color filters on a bw original is the way one removes colored stains, and with film can be used to increase contrast on prints where the image is nearly invisible. I have not had a chance to try this with digital yet.
Sorry for the length, but thought I could add something to the thread.
Thanks, Mike

Thanks Mike,

You explained the 2 polarising filters well. I hadn't thought of a digital camera for picture capture.

The truth is I don't have one, only the old way of copy with a twin lens camera and a bowl of water, or damp the print before I put it on the flat bed scanner. (for the textured surface)

I’m very familiar with the paper type, but I always test a corner first.

Sally

I tried the decracks action that I got from this site on some textured scans that I did recently. It worked much better than anything else I have tried. The texture was not completely eliminated but it faded so that it was just barely noticeable. WC

I just wanted to add what has worked for me. I have best results by taking a digital picture of the original. I do the same as Vikki, set up in natural light with a solid surface and use my remote control for the camera so I don't jiggle/blur. I use a 2 mega pixel camera with the flash off. I also used this for a picture someone brought me that was glued into a piece of driftwood. 100 year old pic of her Dad...was a tiny picture and I got to print up much larger for her and she was so happy. I posted a result of that pic in the thread > Restoration, Retouching, and Manipulation > Paint Shop Pro/ Photoshop Monitor<

Not a suggestion but just a question, have any of you ever used "dulling sprays" before you scan?

Our (traditional) copy setup includes a Colortran light setup that takes care of most of the glare along with a polarizing setup as needed so I don't usually have any problem, however, some textures can still show "burn" reflections and in those cases I'll revert to an old trick studios use when you are photographing mirroring objects by using a removable dulling spray - Krylon No 1310.

It can be taken off as soon as you finish the job. No comments about age testing and/or long term effects if any on the originals, I've never tested it for that - nor has anyone else that I know of but it's removable with water and such products are seldom harmful to photographs. (We get an "ok to spray" authorization from the customers if it appears that it will be necessary)

I'd test it myself but as some of you already know, I don't consider digital work my long suit and wouldn't know if there are other ways that will do just as well or better.

Jim Conway

Hi

I don't have any personal experience with dulling spray but know an objects conservator who has run into big problems with the spray being used on silver objects. The objects formed little spots where the dulling spray was and tarnished at those locations. I mention it only because it could be a problem for photographs being that silver is also involved.

My thought is avoid if possible (especially on older photos with cracks/losses etc.that can be hard to clean) and if not make sure it is removed completely after you're finished.

As Jim mentioned a good lighting set up and polarizers do the trick 95% of the time.

--Heather
www.tudhope.net