What lights should I use for a copystand setup?

[FrozenMoment]

Equipment:

Camera: Nikon D800

Copystand: Bencher Copymate II
or Beseler CS-14 Copystand Kit
or Kaiser RS 1 / RS 2

Lighting: a lighting kit made for the copy stand?
or a flash setup (e.g. 2x AlienBees B400 in soft boxes)?

Lens: ?

So far all I have bought is the camera and two primes (50mm 1.8G & 85mm 1.8G).

My objective is to digitize, in the best possible quality, hundreds of old photographs.

Would a copystand with lights give better or worse results than a copystand without lights but with a couple flashes aimed at the pictures?

As far as lights. Different copystands offer different kinds of lights.

Bencher offers florescent and halogen .

Beseler offers 600w incandescent sockets .

Kaiser offers florescent, halogen, & tungsten.

Or would using flashes on flash stands be better? I was looking at the AlienBees because they're cheaper than speedlights. But speedlights are more versatile to take with you. Then again I don't know if they'd be as good as the AlienBees for copystand work.

I also don't know what lens I should buy, but I realize this is the lighting forum so I wont get into that.

 

[Klaus dk]

I would get a 105 f/2.8 Micro-nikkor. The point is that these lenses have a flat focus field and are made for reproduction work. The length is enough to handle perspective distortion well and this lens is famous for its sharpness.

If the pictures you are copying are both colour and B&W I would use either incandescent lights (tungsten or halogen) or flash (speedlights or strobes) because of their superior colour rendition capabilities. The spectrum of flourescent or LED lights are less than ideal for colour reproduction.

Do not use softboxes as you are bound to get reflections. Read Light Science and Magic to understand this. The classic repro setup is two or four hard light sources placed at 45 degree angles on each side of the picture you are copying, so that reflections of the lights will not hit the lens.

What about a flat bed scanner?

 

[Sailor Blue]

What about a flat bed scanner?

I'll second that.

 

[KCook]

LED lights are real cheap. But I think speedlights (there are some priced under AB strobes) would give more control. Link for another thread on this topic -

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2927190

Kelly Cook

 

[FrozenMoment]

I would get a 105 f/2.8 Micro-nikkor. The point is that these lenses have a flat focus field and are made for reproduction work. The length is enough to handle perspective distortion well and this lens is famous for its sharpness.

If the pictures you are copying are both colour and B&W I would use either incandescent lights (tungsten or halogen) or flash (speedlights or strobes) because of their superior colour rendition capabilities. The spectrum of flourescent or LED lights are less than ideal for colour reproduction.

Do not use softboxes as you are bound to get reflections. Read Light Science and Magic to understand this. The classic repro setup is two or four hard light sources placed at 45 degree angles on each side of the picture you are copying, so that reflections of the lights will not hit the lens.

What about a flat bed scanner?

I'm having a hard time choosing lenses. Even between Nikon's own line. The 60mm looks to be sharper in some tests, but people rave about how sharp the 105mm is.

So I don't know if the test was flawed or if the 60mm is just even sharper.

Here are some comparisons.

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro Nikkor Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1175/cat/12

 

[FrozenMoment]

LED lights are real cheap. But I think speedlights (there are some priced under AB strobes) would give more control. Link for another thread on this topic -

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2927190

Kelly Cook

Thanks for the link. Interesting thread.

Speedlights would be more versatile for other things as well. I didn't think lower end speedlights would be able to provide enough light.

 

[afoton]

I'm having a hard time choosing lenses. Even between Nikon's own line. The 60mm looks to be sharper in some tests, but people rave about how sharp the 105mm is.

I would choose focal length dependent to the size of your objects and the height of your copy stand. Small objects, long focal length. Bigger objects, shorter focal length.

All dedicated macro lenses are sharp enough. It is the sturdiness of the copy stand, the precision of the focusing and the flatness of the object that is critical for the best result.

 

[Warren Grubb]

I vote for the use of a flatbed scanner. I use the Epson Perfection V500 Photo.

 

[Joe Pa]

I agree, flatbed scanner is best option. There are also professional book scanners which are designed for this sort of work, if you're interested you can PM me. If you decide to go with your copy stand you will need to find the right lens - I am not familiar with Nikon so I can't help there.

Most traditional book scanners and filmers use lights than ran along the edges of the


You would want to try to duplicate this configuration to avoid shadows and light the photos evenly.

 

[Klaus dk]

I have not tried either lens, but I would guess they are both so sharp, that there is no practical difference. I think the 105 might be a little better for copy work because of the narrower field of view, but as afoton writes, it depends on the size of the material.

 

[Klaus dk]

LED lights are real cheap. But I think speedlights (there are some priced under AB strobes) would give more control. Link for another thread on this topic -

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2927190

Kelly Cook

Thanks for the link. Interesting thread.

Speedlights would be more versatile for other things as well. I didn't think lower end speedlights would be able to provide enough light.

On copy stands, the lights are placed quite close to the subject, and you will usually have at least two and preferably four lights. Almost any speedlight will give you enough light in that configuration, and manual speedlights are not that expensive.

You have not answered how you feel about a flat bed scanner. In many ways that will be a much better choice for copying photographs - copying two dimensional objects is what they are made for.

 

[Phil214757]

I vote for the use of a flatbed scanner. I use the Epson Perfection V500 Photo.

I use the Epson V600 Photo scanner.

They have the advantage of flattening the work against glass with a lid over a copy stand.

I had a great time building an inverted stage copy stand to transcribe a magazine archive to digital. It was created with a moving stage so the left and right page faces could be captured independently once the copy was positioned. There I used butterfly lighting from two 18" florescent tubes.

When I had a copy stand going it used four hot lights. Now of course you can shoot tethered at least until you get the lighting angle worked out. If the platform is not an 18% gray card paint it and use it to see lighting effectiveness. You might even use that for a basis for an exposure adjustment mask.

You may need enough light to use a polarizer if the images are on matte paper as the irregular surface can reflect a wider range of light angles into the lens.

 

[korvet]

I agree, flatbed scanner is best option. There are also professional book scanners which are designed for this sort of work, if you're interested you can PM me. If you decide to go with your copy stand you will need to find the right lens - I am not familiar with Nikon so I can't help there.

Most traditional book scanners and filmers use lights than ran along the edges of the


You would want to try to duplicate this configuration to avoid shadows and light the photos evenly.

what is this scanner model?

 

[rumple]

If the pictures you are copying are both colour and B&W I would use either incandescent lights (tungsten or halogen) or flash (speedlights or strobes) because of their superior colour rendition capabilities.

Strobes have the advantage of not being affected by movement of the setup, unlike continuous lights. And strobes will run all day, vs speedlights, as well as putting out plenty of power for low-iso / f/11 shots.

What about a flat bed scanner?

Slow. Can't, to the best of my knowledge, calibrate them like a copy stand with a ColorChecker Passport Photo 2 - Calibrite - United States

I'm having a hard time choosing lenses. Even between Nikon's own line. The 60mm looks to be sharper in some tests, but people rave about how sharp the 105mm is.

The 60mm is a "copy lens" and has a very flat field as a result. It is designed for copying. Sharpness is a non-issue, you'll be using any lens stopped-down for this.

 

[rumple]

LED lights are real cheap.

Cheap LED's are generally unusable because of flicker. I have helped more than one small business owner who thought they got a great deal on a light tent with LED lighting.

I didn't think lower end speedlights would be able to provide enough light.

Give you're buying a good copy stand, one assumes you'll be doing some volume. Speedlights are not a good choice.

I'm partial to the strobes partly because they are usefull away from the copy stand, compared to most continuous lighting. If you do go continuous, look for a CRI of >94 at least. If your materials need to have colour-accurate reproduction, go higher and use a ColorChecker Passport as previously mentioned.