digitising old prints with DL

Have been experimenting with digitising 50 year old B&W prints (eg 6' x 8") using wife's DL on tripod using Sigma 18-125 zoom lens. Taken at max res as jpeg. For comparison used home Dell 924 300 DPI scanner and printed both at A4 size. Results from DL compare favourably with scanned jpeg of same pixel size and with source print. To my eyes DL shots look sharper - scanned a bit soft. Now wondering whether using SLR to copy old prints is just as good as paying for pro scanning. Certainly quick and cost effective. I guess as long as res of copying medium is greater than source resolution the results should be ok.

I forgot to add I'm interested on any feedback from users who have used their SLR to digitise old prints, eg traps for new players.

I didn't digitize old prints, but digitized old 35mm and medium format slides instead. It was a nice project for long winter evenings and some results are in my galley. I used the Sigma 105mm EX and the Kiron 105mm Macro lens on a Pentax ist D.
--



Camera Bodies come and go, good glass stays forever.
http://wheelgunner.zoto.com/galleries

Let me ask a question, how did you do it? I mean 'digitized old 35mm and slides'...
I have a bunch of slides I want to digitize, but not sure how.

Thanks.
--

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)
Criticize a friend in private and praise him in public. (Leonardo da Vinci)

Here is a link to a thread I started a few month ago with the old user name:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=16439281

Further down in this thread it shows the setup and how I did it.

DKiNY said:

Let me ask a question, how did you do it? I mean 'digitized old
35mm and slides'...
I have a bunch of slides I want to digitize, but not sure how.

Click to expand...

DKiNY said:

Thanks.

Click to expand...

--



Camera Bodies come and go, good glass stays forever.
http://wheelgunner.zoto.com/galleries

Haven't done much of this since high-shool yearbook class, but a few points (mostly obvious, but hey):

Be sure to check the edges for sharpness and CA, as the scanner should be uniform, but the camera will get worse at the edges.

With a bigish zoom like that, be sure to use a focal length with no distortion.

Also make sure you're using a setup that gives you the depth of field to make up for the spherical nature of the lens' focal distance. You're probably ok with the 8-11ish where the lens is sharpest, but be certain before you start, and make sure you're focused at a distance that gets everything.

You may want to shoot a blank piece of paper (preferably shiny) to get your lighting uniform and without reflections. Matte finishes will also sometimes get funky, as they'll reflect side-lit sources more than you might expect.

Also might be a good time for a particularly anal round of sensor cleaning.

Hey Swoald,

This type of photographing is best done with a macro lens that is equipped with a Clamp Switch, such as the Pentax DFA 50mm f2.8.

The Clamp Switch is convenient for "Manual Focus" as it locks the "Manual Focus" position. This is why it is ideal when taking close-ups with a copy stand.

The [ Autofocus ] is disabled when the "Clamp Switch" is in use.

Back in the days they used Copy Stands to photograph the pages of the books, or sometimes just photographs. However, it is also useful to photograph stuff like insects and smal flat objects.

Here is a link to more information about [ The Copy Stand ]

http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/macro/copy.html

Hope this helps,

Info_Man

swoald said:

Have been experimenting with digitising 50 year old B&W prints (eg
6' x 8") using wife's DL on tripod using Sigma 18-125 zoom lens.
Taken at max res as jpeg. For comparison used home Dell 924 300
DPI scanner and printed both at A4 size. Results from DL compare
favourably with scanned jpeg of same pixel size and with source
print. To my eyes DL shots look sharper - scanned a bit soft.
Now wondering whether using SLR to copy old prints is just as good
as paying for pro scanning. Certainly quick and cost effective. I
guess as long as res of copying medium is greater than source
resolution the results should be ok.

Click to expand...

Hi phx - thanks for info - do you know whether light box technique be used for digitising colour film negatives as well as transparencies? I assume conversion to positive is done in photoshop? Thanks John H.

Thanks Dan - useful info. I think I can build a simple stand - easier than tripod setup . John H.

Hi Curtis R - thanks for set up tips. john h.

Good question, but I don't know the answer. I always did B&W Film and Slides only. I don't even have any color negatives.

I digitized a BW medium format negative with a Macro Lens and then reversed it in Photo Shop. I looked alright, but totally different than the print I had made years ago.
I guess it would be worth trying and see what happens with a color negative....

swoald said:

Hi phx - thanks for info - do you know whether light box technique
be used for digitising colour film negatives as well as
transparencies? I assume conversion to positive is done in
photoshop? Thanks John H.

Click to expand...

--



Camera Bodies come and go, good glass stays forever.
http://wheelgunner.zoto.com/galleries

The scanner should give you lower distortion and sharper edge sharpness, unless you use a flat field good macro lens. Lighting can be quite tricky for copying photographs. In general it is probably a better idea to use a scanner.

swoald said:

Have been experimenting with digitising 50 year old B&W prints (eg
6' x 8") using wife's DL on tripod using Sigma 18-125 zoom lens.
Taken at max res as jpeg. For comparison used home Dell 924 300
DPI scanner and printed both at A4 size. Results from DL compare
favourably with scanned jpeg of same pixel size and with source
print. To my eyes DL shots look sharper - scanned a bit soft.
Now wondering whether using SLR to copy old prints is just as good
as paying for pro scanning. Certainly quick and cost effective. I
guess as long as res of copying medium is greater than source
resolution the results should be ok.

Click to expand...

Hi Anastigmat - thanks - makes sense - given size of my 35mm collection (mainly colour negs) a scanner looks like it might be most cost effective solution, eg a flatbed scanner which gives acceptable results on colour negs as well as prints. Limited research suggests that something like Epson 4990 might do the job. Is there a forum on scanners?