Photographing old documents that can't be scanned. Macro?

[Gene E Alogist]

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

 

[photonius]

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

what lenses do you have? it sounds like you have large documents that may not require a macro.

what you need is a good stand and remote control.

 

[Endrick Man]

I am into family history and sometimes other research so I do what you are wanting to do. I have a 100mm macro for my 60D and I sometimes use that once I mange to work out how to get the document flat and be far enough away for the field of view I want with the focal length of the lens! I also use my iPad with an app called DocScanHD and this does a good job, it allows you some adjustment of the scanned image which you export as a psd. This is now the main tool of choice, don't know what other tablets might achieve, because it is generally to hand and it is certainly simpler to set up than the 100mm lens but in both cases take care to look for shadows on the image to be scanned as the contrast range that leads to can be a problem.

Things would be simpler in most cases on the 60D with a shorter focal length lens, good luck.

 

[jayboo]

I think I would try photographing them with the lens you have for now, and check results, if it doesn't pull out the detail you require then try a Macro lens. Much of my photography is printed goods for a family member's website, and a friends artwork for theirs. For that purpose I mostly use Canon ef 50mm 2.5 Macro lens which i find perfect for the job. I do have the 100mm L Macro but find the focal length more difficult to work with for my needs, wonderful lens though. Price wise the canon 50mm 2.5 Macro can be picked up quite cheaply second hand, (UK £150 ish - probably cheaper US - everything seems to be). However if your wife has a rebel body she probably has the 18-55 and that may well do the job, it has the macro capability of close focussing.

--
Jayboo

 

[yellodog]

It might be worth the time and expense to try the app Textgrabber by AABBYY.

http://www.abbyy.com/textgrabber/

It "scans" text and gives you an editable document which sounds useful. I haven't tried it myself.

 

[meland]

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

Ideally you should probably use a true Macro lens for this. Canon have several that would do the job but for copying artwork or documents either the 50mm f/2.5 M or EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro would be ideal. You could use a 100mm macro but you might find this distance from camera to subject becomes a bit long (2x longer than the 50mm) and therefore a little inconvenient. Also 100mm macros tend to be quite expensive.

Some have mentioned that you could probably use your existing lens if it has a 'macro' mode, or if it focusses close enough, and indeed you could. But such lenses are not usually very well corrected for distortion and flatness of field, especially at close distances, and so you might find that your photos of your historical document have curved edges. This may not matter too much to you but if it does then true Macro lenses like the 50mm and 60mm do not generally suffer from this kind of distortion.

 

[Billyhii]

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

I used to use a close up lens kit back in my old film days and before scanners, to copy documents and old photos. I would just put on one or more of the close up lens on a 50mm or other camera lens and take a photo of the document. It worked very good.

Normally, I would prop up or tape up a document to a wall or piece of cardboard and take the photos outside in the shade in order to eliminate shadows and to have adequate light.

Here are some close up lens kits that you may want to consider:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...t&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Please note that these are 52mm and you would need to get a set in the correct size to screw on your particular lens. I would think that even a very cheap set would be good as they are only magnifying glasses. IMO, $1.99 reading glasses are as good as $100.00 reading glasses.

Maybe someone else can comment on using this technique.

However, I think I would try Jayboo's suggestion first, ...try your existing lens before spending money on something new and untried.

Billy

 

[arty H]

For a macro lens, you would need the shortest focal length you can find. This is likely to be the Canon 50 f2.5, reportedly a true flat field lens with minimal distortion. I have the Tokina 35 F2.8 macro lens, but it is discontinued and may have a slight amount of distortion, perhaps more than the Canon.

The problem with long lenses for copying is that you will need to be too far away for use on most copy stands.

If there is very little copying or scanning to be done, you can consider a commercial service. If you will be doing a lot of this, then invest in a good macro setup. The kit lens has lots of distortion and vignetting at the wide end, and I would not select it for copy work. The issue is just how precise a copy is wanted, and this will determine your needs.

 

[tonyjr]

I copy pictures on a wall . These are old family shots with no scanner around - mostly B & W .

Anyway , I used to use the 18-55 IS w / XTI , then the 17-55 and later added the 7D .

My problem were - angle , glare , cheap - wavy glass and lighting too name a few .

Angle = tall tripod , glare = a stick with a shirt on coat hanger , have not figured out wavy glass [ Photo shop dodging helps ] and lighting- I have gels that are mounted on pop up flash . [ a popsicle stick broken in 1/2 held on each side be a rubber band - another rubber band holds on gel . ] I hound both my EX 380 and 580 II to awkward ,

Be nice to see other ideas , I only go once or twice a year and most of time it is at least 20 minutes down a bad dirt road .

 

[brightcolours]

meland wrote:

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

Ideally you should probably use a true Macro lens for this. Canon have several that would do the job but for copying artwork or documents either the 50mm f/2.5 M or EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro would be ideal.

Not really. 50-60mm macro on FF would be ideal, not on APS-C. But only the discontinued Tokina 35mm macro is a macro lens with "ideal" copy work focal length on APS-C. Luckily one can use other 35mm lenses too.

You could use a 100mm macro but you might find this distance from camera to subject becomes a bit long (2x longer than the 50mm) and therefore a little inconvenient. Also 100mm macros tend to be quite expensive.

Some have mentioned that you could probably use your existing lens if it has a 'macro' mode, or if it focusses close enough, and indeed you could. But such lenses are not usually very well corrected for distortion and flatness of field, especially at close distances, and so you might find that your photos of your historical document have curved edges.

Or rather, edges which are not totally in focus (due to the non-flatness of the focus plane)

This may not matter too much to you but if it does then true Macro lenses like the 50mm and 60mm do not generally suffer from this kind of distortion.

 

[meland]

brightcolours wrote:

meland wrote:

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

Thank you,

~Sam

Ideally you should probably use a true Macro lens for this. Canon have several that would do the job but for copying artwork or documents either the 50mm f/2.5 M or EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro would be ideal.

Not really. 50-60mm macro on FF would be ideal, not on APS-C. But only the discontinued Tokina 35mm macro is a macro lens with "ideal" copy work focal length on APS-C. Luckily one can use other 35mm lenses too.

You could use a 100mm macro but you might find this distance from camera to subject becomes a bit long (2x longer than the 50mm) and therefore a little inconvenient. Also 100mm macros tend to be quite expensive.

Some have mentioned that you could probably use your existing lens if it has a 'macro' mode, or if it focusses close enough, and indeed you could. But such lenses are not usually very well corrected for distortion and flatness of field, especially at close distances, and so you might find that your photos of your historical document have curved edges.

Or rather, edges which are not totally in focus (due to the non-flatness of the focus plane)

Well that also, but I was referring to the barrel or pincushion distortion the many lenses suffer from but which tends to be corrected for in Macro lenses.

This may not matter too much to you but if it does then true Macro lenses like the 50mm and 60mm do not generally suffer from this kind of distortion.

 

[brightcolours]

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

It is quite hard to photograph documents (surprisingly). Most difficult to get them straight aligned in the frame, without "professional" copy stand. But you can skew and straighten on the computer, luckily. The distance to the document is also problematic, I do not know your possibilities. Best is to try a 35mm lens (on FF 50-60mm lenses are used for this task, usually). The Canon EF 35mm f2 has quite low barrel distortion, which can be corrected in software if wanted. It has quite a flat focus plane too, so your whole document will be in focus. Another option would be a 2nd hand Tokina 35mm f2.8 DX macro.

Shoot with an aperture of about f5.6 for good sharpness and enough depth of focus.

Thank you,

~Sam

 

[jayboo]

brightcolours wrote:

Gene E Alogist wrote:

All,

I know little about photography. I scan genealogical and historical documents. I've recently come across some quite old papers (late 1600s, early 1700s, mid 1800s) and three on vellum (animal hide such as cattle, goat, sheep).

They are oddly sized and larger than my desktop scanner.

My wife has a Canon Rebel EOS XS Digital.

Would purchasing a macro lens allow for photographing the documents well or would it pay to have them professionally scanned? Would 'extension' devices be a better approach.

If a macros lens would you have a suggestion for the price conscious?

It is quite hard to photograph documents (surprisingly). Most difficult to get them straight aligned in the frame, without "professional" copy stand. But you can skew and straighten on the computer, luckily. The distance to the document is also problematic, I do not know your possibilities. Best is to try a 35mm lens (on FF 50-60mm lenses are used for this task, usually). The Canon EF 35mm f2 has quite low barrel distortion, which can be corrected in software if wanted. It has quite a flat focus plane too, so your whole document will be in focus. Another option would be a 2nd hand Tokina 35mm f2.8 DX macro.

Shoot with an aperture of about f5.6 for good sharpness and enough depth of focus.

Thank you,

~Sam

When I am shooting documents etc I set up my camera on tripod at highest setting pointing straight down so as to keep everything flat, I use studio lights but you could use flash.