How to take a picture of a picture.

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

You might try natural light first. If you can get the print in the sun without any reflections visible in the lens, that will take care of lighting.

If you get reflections, try moving the camera off axis a little.

You are best off if you try to fill the frame with the picture, but be sure not to cut any off. You can shoot test pictures to see if you are about right. The best thing to do is to bracket your exposure and then pick the best one on the PC after shooting. You don't need a tripod, but you will need to keep your exposure time high enough to prevent camera shake if you don't use a tripod.

Getting it to look as good as the original is difficult, but not impossibe. Scanning is easier and isn't very expensive if you are just going to scan pictures. (Though scanner prices climb quickly if you are doing more).

If the S40 has manual color balance, use it. If not, then try to match the colors of the original in your editing program.

Shoot some test shots and post them and we can tell you how you are doing and make suggestions.

Simone M. Navarra said:

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of
old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best
shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean
a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the
original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

Click to expand...

Thanks MagicAngel.

I will try to take some pictures in the next days, and post them if I can

Does your answer mean that taking pictures instead of scanning is indeed a good idea that can bring good results?

Thanks again

Simone

MagicAngel said:

If you get reflections, try moving the camera off axis a little.

You are best off if you try to fill the frame with the picture, but
be sure not to cut any off. You can shoot test pictures to see if
you are about right. The best thing to do is to bracket your
exposure and then pick the best one on the PC after shooting. You
don't need a tripod, but you will need to keep your exposure time
high enough to prevent camera shake if you don't use a tripod.

Getting it to look as good as the original is difficult, but not
impossibe. Scanning is easier and isn't very expensive if you are
just going to scan pictures. (Though scanner prices climb quickly
if you are doing more).

If the S40 has manual color balance, use it. If not, then try to
match the colors of the original in your editing program.

Shoot some test shots and post them and we can tell you how you are
doing and make suggestions.

Simone M. Navarra said:

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of
old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best
shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean
a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the
original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

not the best B&W conversion, but an earlier one that I took and restored from and old tattered and yellowed photo in frame.

I took this image with my Nikon 995 under a kitchen light with a spot light shooting straight down.

tim

Simone M. Navarra said:

I will try to take some pictures in the next days, and post them if
I can

Does your answer mean that taking pictures instead of scanning is
indeed a good idea that can bring good results?

Thanks again

Simone

MagicAngel said:

If you get reflections, try moving the camera off axis a little.

You are best off if you try to fill the frame with the picture, but
be sure not to cut any off. You can shoot test pictures to see if
you are about right. The best thing to do is to bracket your
exposure and then pick the best one on the PC after shooting. You
don't need a tripod, but you will need to keep your exposure time
high enough to prevent camera shake if you don't use a tripod.

Getting it to look as good as the original is difficult, but not
impossibe. Scanning is easier and isn't very expensive if you are
just going to scan pictures. (Though scanner prices climb quickly
if you are doing more).

If the S40 has manual color balance, use it. If not, then try to
match the colors of the original in your editing program.

Shoot some test shots and post them and we can tell you how you are
doing and make suggestions.

Simone M. Navarra said:

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of
old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best
shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean
a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the
original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I would prefer to use a scanner, but sometimes a camera works (especially with photos that have some kind of texture).
Try experimenting with macro mode (if your camera has that feature).

Also, and this may prove to be as expensive as buying a scanner, do a search for "copy stands". That will give you the information you are looking for.

An important thing to keep in mind when doing this, is to make sure your camera is level with the picture, otherwise you will have distortion.
Vikki

Simone M. Navarra said:

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of
old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best
shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean
a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the
original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

Click to expand...

I still have my first enlarger (a Bogen 22A) and will probably never get rid of it because it doubles as a copy stand. By some stroke of luck, the head is attached with 1/4 x 20 thread, which is actually the same size as most tripod threads in cameras.

Simone M. Navarra said:

Thanks MagicAngel.

I will try to take some pictures in the next days, and post them if
I can

Does your answer mean that taking pictures instead of scanning is
Indeed a good idea that can bring good results?

Click to expand...

Scanning has several advantages over photographing.

1. The image is held flat by the scanner (You can do this by putting glass over your photograph when shooting).
2. Focus is never a problem in scanning.
3. Lighting is never a problem in scanning.
4. Color balance is never a problem in scanning.

5. Having the camera off axis and thus changing the focal plane so that the image doesn't focus equally is never a problem with scanning.

Given those problem, you can see that photographing is much harder than scanning, but can give you good results if you take the time to do it correctly and the photograph can be held down properly.

Just to be clear, the copy stand idea is a good one because it eliminates camera movement, keeps the camera on the focal plane axis and allows you to shoot test shots to check focus and lighting. Once the camera is set, several photographs can be shot without making changes to the camera.

freeman said:

I still have my first enlarger (a Bogen 22A) and will probably
never get rid of it because it doubles as a copy stand. By some
stroke of luck, the head is attached with 1/4 x 20 thread, which is
actually the same size as most tripod threads in cameras.

Click to expand...

All suggestions were appreciated, I'm going to look for a cheap copy stand or to fiddle a bit with my tripod and see if I can get any good result.

Thanks!

Simone

MagicAngel said:

freeman said:

I still have my first enlarger (a Bogen 22A) and will probably
never get rid of it because it doubles as a copy stand. By some
stroke of luck, the head is attached with 1/4 x 20 thread, which is
actually the same size as most tripod threads in cameras.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ok I see it's very good. I had some fun fixing this up for you, I hope you like it.

As you'll se the background still nees some cleaning, and in the end I'd unsharp a little, but that's going to take a little time and I just wanted to fix contrast.

Thanks for your answer.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1122625

Tim Lauro said:

I took this image with my Nikon 995 under a kitchen light with a
spot light shooting straight down.

tim

Simone M. Navarra said:

I will try to take some pictures in the next days, and post them if
I can

Does your answer mean that taking pictures instead of scanning is
indeed a good idea that can bring good results?

Thanks again

Simone

MagicAngel said:

If you get reflections, try moving the camera off axis a little.

You are best off if you try to fill the frame with the picture, but
be sure not to cut any off. You can shoot test pictures to see if
you are about right. The best thing to do is to bracket your
exposure and then pick the best one on the PC after shooting. You
don't need a tripod, but you will need to keep your exposure time
high enough to prevent camera shake if you don't use a tripod.

Getting it to look as good as the original is difficult, but not
impossibe. Scanning is easier and isn't very expensive if you are
just going to scan pictures. (Though scanner prices climb quickly
if you are doing more).

If the S40 has manual color balance, use it. If not, then try to
match the colors of the original in your editing program.

Shoot some test shots and post them and we can tell you how you are
doing and make suggestions.

Simone M. Navarra said:

I have a Powershot S40, and would like to try and take pictures of
old photos, retouch them and reprint. I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

What I'd like to know is:

1) How to set-up lights, position, exposition etc to take the best
shot.

2) Am I going to obtain an acceptable result? For acceptable I mean
a picture that once been edited and re-printed looks as good as the
original (no added grain, blur ecc).

Thanks

Simone

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Simone M. Navarra said:

I know a scanner would be
better, but since my camera has got a nice resolution maybe I could
try to reproduce small prints without having to buy an expensive
scanner.

Click to expand...

Simone,

If you're still monitoring this post, let me share my experiences as a former professional photogropher who has done a lot of copy work.

Since you don't have a copy stand, you're going to end up spending money one way or another. You can buy a good Epson scanner for less than a cheap copy stand costs ( 100). Cheap copy stands are almost worse than no copy stands. They are poorly made and hard to work with. They are also a lot larger than a scanner, so you'll have to deal with storing it when not in use.

Here's the reasons you need to break down and buy a scanner:

Lighting - The only way to get uniform lighting on the photo to be copied is to buy professional equipment, including a really good light meter so you can take readings at different points. You'll also have to fight glare unless you use polarizers on all the lights and the camera. Said polarizers run three to four times the cost of the scanner.

File size - You want the most detail possible and a scanner will provide you with larger files, especially if you get one capable of scanning 2400 dpi.

Optics - Even the finest camera lenses aren't as sharp at the corners as in the middle. There's a good chance you'll notice this. Also, unless you use special flat field lenses you get image distortion, usually barrel distortion. By the nature of image capture of scanners, neither problem exists.

Workflow - It is much easier to put your photo on the scanner bed and press the button than it is to set up a copy stand, fiddle with the lights, compose the image, make the exposure and transfer the file to your computer.

The only time I'd consider using a digital camera to copy flat art is for very large originals. I've very successfully used my scanner to copy 16x20 photos by copying them in sections and using stitching software to create the final image.

Bottom line - if you have more than a couple of photos to copy, get a scanner. I suggest you save your pennies and spring for the Epson 2450. It's a great scanner that will also scan negatives.

Regards,
Doug

My 3mp camera takes good pictures of pictures. I am looking for a scanner that does good scanning at a low file size. The epson scanner's (the mid range one) largest resolution file site is said to be 96 gig. I want one with a feeder. Should I go with the HP 5500c?

Thanks

Doug's points are right on. For copy work the ideal setup is to have two lights shining from either side. These need to be well balanced lights or things start looking hokey. You then often need polarizers to cut reflections.

All said and done, getting good results with a camera is possible, but a flatbed scanner is cheaper and much, much easier. The only time a camera is essential is for fragile or very large originals that can not be placed on ascanner.

Now, let's try this on the cheap. The first thing to do is to align the camera and photo to be copied so they are parallel to each other and not offset at all. This will help eliminate any distortions. You can hang the photo on a wall (dark, neutral matt board is better), or place it flat on a surface if your tripod allows pointing the camera straight down.

Next, you need light. If the only available source is your on-camera flash, you will need a diffuser. Going cheap, a hunk of plastic milk jug fits the bill. You wil get better results with some kind of rigged up lighting. Try to shine two lights at 45° angles to the artwork. Again, a hunk of trusty milk jug can make a softbox in a pinch.

Experiment to see how much of the frame you should fill with the photo. Obviously, the more of the available image area is filled with photo, the better the final results can be. Counteracting that, however, is the lens distortion you may find. If distortion is too severe, you may get better overall results by filling slightly less of the frome with the photo to be copied.

Good luck, and let us know how it turns out!

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

I think buying a scanner will be cheaper and faster. I think I'll stick to both scanning and photography, using pictures fo badly damaged images or for large paintings etc.

I'll check the Epson 2450 (I was thinking about the new Canon scanners as well) and see if it suits my needs.

Thanks again for the great support to everyone.

Simone

Ethan Hansen said:

Doug's points are right on. For copy work the ideal setup is to
have two lights shining from either side. These need to be well
balanced lights or things start looking hokey. You then often need
polarizers to cut reflections.

All said and done, getting good results with a camera is possible,
but a flatbed scanner is cheaper and much, much easier. The only
time a camera is essential is for fragile or very large originals
that can not be placed on ascanner.

Now, let's try this on the cheap. The first thing to do is to
align the camera and photo to be copied so they are parallel to
each other and not offset at all. This will help eliminate any
distortions. You can hang the photo on a wall (dark, neutral matt
board is better), or place it flat on a surface if your tripod
allows pointing the camera straight down.

Next, you need light. If the only available source is your
on-camera flash, you will need a diffuser. Going cheap, a hunk of
plastic milk jug fits the bill. You wil get better results with
some kind of rigged up lighting. Try to shine two lights at 45°
angles to the artwork. Again, a hunk of trusty milk jug can make a
softbox in a pinch.

Experiment to see how much of the frame you should fill with the
photo. Obviously, the more of the available image area is filled
with photo, the better the final results can be. Counteracting
that, however, is the lens distortion you may find. If distortion
is too severe, you may get better overall results by filling
slightly less of the frome with the photo to be copied.

Good luck, and let us know how it turns out!

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

Click to expand...

I agree with the above recommendations for a scanner. However, there are times during my genealogy research that I simply can't take a picture out of an old frame to run it through a scanner. Many old photos are mounted in old frames and the owner will not, quite reasonably, allow disassembly for a scanning session. The obvious, and only, answer is to shoot the picture in the frame.

This can be tough if the owner of the picture won't allow it's removal from the wall. As stated above, getting outside in daylight and playing with the angle of view is good if that's possible. When I was using a polarizer with my old film cameras I often got good results in reducing glare and reflections. I've not tried it with my Minolta but I assume the results would be the same.

A cousin has a great 106 year old portrait of my grandparents that is mounted in a large (original) oval frame with a convex glass covering it. For obvious reasons she will not allow me to take it apart for duplicating. I've shot that portrait on 6 separate occasions and, after much work in photoshop I finally got the image where I want it. In any case, the results arel not be as good as a scanned image would be and is used only as a last resort.

Dan

Mandan said:

When
I was using a polarizer with my old film cameras I often got good
results in reducing glare and reflections. I've not tried it with
my Minolta but I assume the results would be the same.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you are careful with the lighting, then the polarizer will have no effect. Plus, some types of glass and polarizers don't agree, so be careful shooting with a polarizer though glass. (Glass with UV protection mostly).

A polarizer will help a lot if you can't control the lighting, but I think you will find that black and white refelectors will do much more to fix the lighting than a polorizer will.

If you have to shoot off-angle because of glass reflections, or because original is mounted high on wall, etc. then, as pointed out, you will get distortion in that rectangular original will appear trapezoidal in your image. BUT -- that can easily be fixed in photoshop by using "edit / transform / distort" tool. You have to measure original to get proper proportions, however.

-bruce

MagicAngel said:

Mandan said:

When
I was using a polarizer with my old film cameras I often got good
results in reducing glare and reflections. I've not tried it with
my Minolta but I assume the results would be the same.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you are careful with the lighting, then the polarizer
will have no effect. Plus, some types of glass and polarizers
don't agree, so be careful shooting with a polarizer though glass.
(Glass with UV protection mostly).

A polarizer will help a lot if you can't control the lighting, but
I think you will find that black and white refelectors will do much
more to fix the lighting than a polorizer will.

Click to expand...