Digitizing really old pictures

Oceanwatcher · #1 08-28-2005, 09:42 AM

I am planning to digitize some of the really old pictures of my family. Some of the pictures have pieces that are stuck to the inside of the glass, so I guess it is not a good idea to try to get them out of the framing to scan them on a flatbed scanner...

What would you suggest as a way to do it here?

Also, a couple og them actually have curved glass - like a oval shaped bubble.

I was thinking of setting up some kind of repro photo setup and photograph the pictures and then scan the negatives. What problems might I expect with such a workflow?

I would love to have my family tree in pictures. Especially since there are quite a few pictures going many years back.

Ken Fournelle · #2 08-28-2005, 10:34 AM

Oceanmember,

Check out some of the threads here: http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sea...earchid=147126

I have, successfully, copied curved or bowed prints with a digital camera. For a curved print, make sure the f/stop is as high as can be to help with depth of field. If the prints are stuck to the glass; watch for reflection. You may need polarizing filters over your copy lights.

k

Oceanwatcher · #3 08-28-2005, 11:44 AM

My digital camera does not produce the kind of pictures I want from this. That is why I suggested film. Maybe a mediumformat camera and drumscan?

Very god point about the filter on the lights. Thank you.

I will check the thread you suggested.

Ken Fournelle · #4 08-28-2005, 01:16 PM

Film will work. The larger the negitive the better. A film with a finer grain would be preferable. The ideal would be to shoot it off a copy stand. Brackett your exposures.

k

Mike · #5 08-28-2005, 01:22 PM

Not knowing exactly how many you have, I would do a quick cost/time analysis of copying on film then scanning to get a digital file.

Might be a good time to up-grade your camera system, and besides no job is worth doing unless you have to buy a new tool to do it

Mike

Kraellin · #6 08-28-2005, 08:03 PM

umm, why not just remove the pictures, stuck glass and all and scan the whole bit? your scan will go through the glass and reflect back off the picture... or should. you might try it with one and see.

Craig

Oceanwatcher · #7 08-28-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kraellin

umm, why not just remove the pictures, stuck glass and all and scan the whole bit? your scan will go through the glass and reflect back off the picture... or should. you might try it with one and see.

Sure, for the ones that are flat, it might definitely be a good idea. I will at least try it. But for those with curved class, I do not think it will work.. Thank you anyway.

Oceanwatcher · #8 08-28-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Not knowing exactly how many you have, I would do a quick cost/time analysis of copying on film then scanning to get a digital file.

Might be a good time to up-grade your camera system, and besides no job is worth doing unless you have to buy a new tool to do it

You are right about the upgrading of camera system. That is on my wish list. But Christmas is still a bit away (Christmas 2010 or so....)

I guess I will end up doing something like 15-20 pictures as a start. And I hope to borrow some equipment from good friends. Just need to find out what kind of stuff I should borrow. Could even try to borrow a good digital camera. I have a promise from a dealer to get to try the Hasselblad with the digital 22 MP back...

Mike · #9 08-28-2005, 09:36 PM

I do quite a bit of copy work with a Canon 1Ds, double polorized lights etc, and I shoot tethered so I can check the images as I do them. Most of the time my customers want smaller copies to place in albums, or once in awhile a slide show on a DVD. Its been more about getting all the images to be about the same size. Take a long look at what you are going to do with the images, then pick the right camera.

For the images with the curved glass, best results when you can really move back and put some distance between the print and the camera. Depth of field will of course be better and you will get away from the distortion caused by the depth of the print. I use a tripod for the camera and have a heavy wood back that I place on a table to hold up the orginal. Measure to make sure the center of the lens is at the center of the orginal. You do not want to induce any keystoning.

Sometimes a bit of work to set it all up, but it makes for a good copy without having to do a lot of work in Photoshop.

Mike

Kraellin · #10 08-29-2005, 07:44 AM

mike,

you mentioned a couple terms i'm not familiar with, 'tethered' and 'keystoning'. what do those terms mean in the context for which you used them?

Craig

Mike · #11 08-29-2005, 08:14 PM

Kraellin

Tethered, as I use it means that the camera is attached (tethered) to a computer so the images pop up on the computer screen as I shoot them. Having a much larger image helps me see what I am getting much better than the little window on the back of the camera. Especially when you are looking for glare on copy prints. I also use this when I do portraits so the subjects can see what we are getting as we do the session.

Keystoning is the effect you get when you shoot something like say an 8x10 photo at an angle so that two of the the sides are not equal in length and the other two sides are no longer parallel to each other.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Kraellin · #12 08-29-2005, 08:24 PM

mike.

makes perfect sense. ya gotta love digital. camera tethered to computer.

and keystoning. ok, like the shape of a keystone then.

thank you.

Craig