RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Restoration
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Restoration Repairing damaged photos

Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 12-16-2008, 08:50 PM
ogee ogee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 55
Re: Scanning vs Digitial camera for archiving phot

TommyO and DigitalPhotoDoc, thanks just the kind of info I was looking for...OlBaldy, at one time I used a similar copy stand with a vacuum to flatten the photo but alas it is long gone.
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 12-16-2008, 09:22 PM
TommyO's Avatar
TommyO TommyO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 1,211
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

RobJ,
I only let them uncurl the unimportant images, nothing special, just a slow and very slight unfurling. Any important images are handled more carefully and only uncurled if absolutely necessary. The reason being the additional cracks that appear in the image.

No, I don't find that a photo is better than a scan. It may have been years ago, when comparing early consumer level scanners to a pro level film camera. But, today when comparing the higher end consumer level scanners to semi-pro digital cameras, not really. Of course, quality depends on the user as well (on both devices).

I have not used that particular copy stand, although it is a very nice one. The only thing I wish I could find is a faster way of mounting those non-critical photographs. I think a vacuum system would be perfect. I would like to be able to swap photo's in about 3 seconds, just as fast as I can place them, and have them stay flat. Unfortunately, I can't find such a stand.
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 12-16-2008, 10:59 PM
ogee ogee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 55
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

How do you keep the sheet metal from curling? I noticed when I got my new furnace installed recently, that the sheet metal was very thin when compared to the old stuff.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 12-17-2008, 09:15 AM
RobJ RobJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 5
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

TommyO,
Thanks for the input. Do you or anyone else have a view as to the best scanner to use for scanning old photographs. Currently I'm using an CanoScan 8400F.

Thanks, RobJ
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 12-17-2008, 02:31 PM
bugman bugman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJ View Post
TommyO,
Thanks for the input. Do you or anyone else have a view as to the best scanner to use for scanning old photographs. Currently I'm using an CanoScan 8400F.

Thanks, RobJ
Rob: I did a mess of old pics, negatives and slides recently on my old Epson perfection 2400 photo with very good results. That scanner allows numerous quality settings which helps a lot. If you buy a scanner, look for one with slide and negative scanning options.

Scan to an archive file and photoshop your future choices at your leisure. This is a very rewarding activity.
Bugman
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 12-19-2008, 08:27 AM
ogee ogee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 55
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyO View Post
RobJ,
I have not used that particular copy stand, although it is a very nice one. The only thing I wish I could find is a faster way of mounting those non-critical photographs. I think a vacuum system would be perfect. I would like to be able to swap photo's in about 3 seconds, just as fast as I can place them, and have them stay flat. Unfortunately, I can't find such a stand.
If you go to http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...jump_to=923556 you can find a guy who built his own vacuum table:
" I built a vacuum table and drew picture edge lines centered on it. I drilled 1-16” holes in the plywood table inside where the picture edges are and built a box on the back. I hooked up a $19.00 shop vac to the box and it sucks the picture flat. I hook my Canon via USB to a laptop and use the Canon remote shoot program on the laptop to view the image, adjust settings, and use my mouse to take the picture."
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:30 AM
sargas sargas is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

I know this is a very very old topic, but I would like to get some opinions from you guys who have more experience than me...

I own a small company which produces images on ceramic plates for gravestones. This means there is a significant number of photographs we need to convert to digital form every day.

Until now, we've been using Canon CanoScan 8400F and HP Scanjet G4010 which worked fine.
However, some old and damaged photos or those printed on paper covered with small holes are rather difficult to photoshop.
Someone suggested using a digital camera instead.

What are your opinions, which method gives better quality, speed, possible problem during the process, etc...
If digital camera is a better solution, what setup do you suggest and how much money could it cost? Or maybe a better scanner is more reasonable, like Epson Perfection V700...

Thanks!
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:09 AM
Mike Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Junction CO USA
Posts: 683
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

Your post brings up more questions than answers.

What does "significant number" mean? Enough for an hour of work or hours of work?

Do you limit your input to prints small enough to fit on the scanner? A camera would allow you to take in any size print.

A camera system would take up more space than a scanner, do you have the room?

Some prints will be fine on a scanner, others are better with a camera. Do you have any idea of the amount of each?

Different skills are required to set up and use a camera rather than a scanner, do you have the skills already or the time and $'s to acquire them?

You state that you are a small company, would it make more sense to contract this work out to someone who has the equipment and the skills already?
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 03-21-2013, 01:05 AM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

i go with a scanner whenever i can. some images, however, just dont fit or dont fit well within the scanner's plate/table space. i've also had to deal with pictures that are too delicate for a lot of moving around or ones that i dont want to remove from an old frame but have a glass over the top of them. so, there is no one answer.

for sheer speed, i prefer the scanner. the lighting is already built in and you can minimize the amount of dust and such by using things like digital ice, lower resolutions and just keeping your scanner surfaces very clean. half the time i find the dust that shows up in the digital copy wasnt originally on the picture, it was on the scanner glass. so, cleanliness is next to the bottom line here.

now, if you have a dedicated camera and lighting setup in place all the time and know what you're doing, that can be quite speedy, too, especially if you have a direct feed from your camera to your computer. but, bear in mind, i've never had a picture that didnt need touchups regardless of whether it was copied with a camera or a scanner.

"dust" tends to be fairly easy to clean up these days. there are auto-spec removers in most decent editors these days, but again, it's going to vary picture to picture. and bear in mind that if you're really going for good resolution for good editing, then your camera is going to pick up the flaws and dust, too.

bottom line to me is, if you've been using a scanner and doing well with it, why change?
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:23 PM
dennybeall dennybeall is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nature Coast of Florida
Posts: 8
Re: Scanning vs Digital camera for archiving photo

If the picture is flat, or can be made flat, I will always use the scanner. Setting the resolution as appropriate for the task - usually very high and in color for restoration work. If the picture is in a frame, or at worst one of the old rounded glass frames, I'll use the camera and whichever lighting technique works best for that one. Very soft reflected light usually working the best.
For a bulk job I usually fill the scanner glass with as many snapshots as it will hold with a little space between each. That creates sort of a "Proof Sheet" for the client to pick from and yet each picture is selectable for additional work.
I'm just getting started in this so have a lot (a very lot) to learn yet and not the least bit bashful to admit it......
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Restoration


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Camera Control Pro 2.0 (reviews wanted) Doug Nelson Hardware 8 05-03-2009 10:48 PM
Photo Retouching Service for Everyday Photos photolate Classifieds 3 07-10-2008 02:17 PM
Photo resolution question Corkster52 Photography 4 05-26-2008 01:24 PM
printing professional quality photos Tinkerbella197 Input/Output/Workflow 14 04-21-2008 05:51 AM
Digital Camera and scanner - help to pick Marthig Hardware 4 01-21-2006 05:39 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved