Can anyone recommend a good method of re-photographing old pictures ?

Morlar

Can anyone recommend a good method of re-photographing old pictures ?

I need to archive large numbers of old photos which are generally 6x9cm.

The requirement here is to get as much detail as humanly possible from the original picture to the new digital copy.

Typically world war two 6x9cm B/w prints which for research purposes it is necessary to make out the detail on shoulder badges, or medals and so on. Another requirement is large size printing of a sharp A4 or even A3 print (without interpolating).

I am thinking along the lines of a macro lens, extension tubes/rings, or coin collector's microscope with camera attachment.

I can photograph them now with a full frame digital camera, using a 50mm 1.4, however it requires cropping of approx 60-70% of the picture to leave a fully focused sharp original. This limits the ability to effectively zoom in on a particular element.

I want to do this in a way which does not require any cropping at all (or as little as possible) and retains the full original image all in full focus.

The option of using a scanner is not feasible due to the fact that many of the pictures are mounted in bulky photo albums.

Can anyone recommend a good approach to this ?

If a macro lens (canon mount) which exact one ? If you are recommending it do you own one or going from a magazine review ?

A Macro lens would hopefully be low light but not prohibitive expense-wise, and will it need a depth of field not too narrow in order to allowing the full frame original b/w photo to remain in pin sharp focus. Bokeh is not a requirement in this case.

Cheers,

PCPhoto

I may get boo'd here but I assume you have copyright of the images you are transferring to digital ?

or is this a family project or something ?

Copyright of a photograph remains with the original photographer and if you do not have permission you could be in serious legal trouble...if caught !

As regards method,

if the detail is in the original image you could use a steady tripod and Canon MP-E65 for pulling the details out - you will need plenty of light as the lens gets fairly close to the subject. (MP-E65 is a manual focus macro lens which can put a grain of rice full frame, I sold mine last year as I was not using it.)

as regards "copying" the original images to digital - macro lenses should suffice, 50mm, 60mm, 100mm and 180mm - a steady tripod and remote release are a must and plenty of light, you really need to control the light as reflections/glare from the photographs will result in a digital image which you wont like.

Morlar

PCPhoto wrote: »

if the detail is in the original image you could use a steady tripod and Canon MP-E65 for pulling the details out - you will need plenty of light as the lens gets fairly close to the subject. (MP-E65 is a manual focus macro lens which can put a grain of rice full frame, I sold mine last year as I was not using it.)

as regards "copying" the original images to digital - macro lenses should suffice, 50mm, 60mm, 100mm and 180mm - a steady tripod and remote release are a must and plenty of light, you really need to control the light as reflections/glare from the photographs will result in a digital image which you wont like.

The detail is in the original image in many of the cases. Would you have a particular 50/60/100/180 mm macro which will permit the entire 6x9cm original to fill the frame ? Any focusing /depth of field issues ? Bearing in mind the entire image needs to be pin sharp, not just a single element. I am aware of light glare from original b/w photos so this is not a concern.

The MP-E65 looks like a good option depending on the price and how much additional light it needs. Do you mind me asking how much you sold yours for ?

dmg1982

Have you thought about scanning?

I'm no expert in this area, but recently got my hands on a Canon CanoScan 9000F for scanning my own medium format negatives and it offers very impressive resolution (9600x9600dpi; 48 bit colour depth).

You can get them new for about €200

magicbastarder

(s)he mentioned in the original post that scanning is not possible for a considerable number of them.

dmg1982

My apologies... missed that when reading the first post!

PCPhoto

I have two 50mm macro, 100mm macro (getting next week) and 180mm macro - I would guess the 180mm would suit you best.

Want to borrow it for the weekend to test ? (I think I know where it is)....and might be able to find a ringlight Mr-14 or ML-3 to use with it.

Not sure how much I sold the MP-E65 for ... it was a bargain for the guy that bought it, prob €400ish - had purchased it and just never got around to using it.

Morlar

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have two 50mm macro, 100mm macro (getting next week) and 180mm macro - I would guess the 180mm would suit you best.

Want to borrow it for the weekend to test ? (I think I know where it is)....and might be able to find a ringlight Mr-14 or ML-3 to use with it.

Not sure how much I sold the MP-E65 for ... it was a bargain for the guy that bought it, prob €400ish - had purchased it and just never got around to using it.

Hi - thanks a lot for the offer, your not based in Dun Laoghaire by any chance ?.

I would not need to borrow it for more than 5 mins, literally I could bring my fulll frame camera and 2 sample 6x9 pics - if they do the job I will be buying one based on that. Let me know where you are and your availability. Thanks again for the offer.

stcstc

get yourself a rostrum camera setup

they have lights built in etc

then have your camera teathered to computer

you can then remote fire it etc

and the files will be straight to computer

it can be a quite fast way to do it

i do it with vintage prints for museums where i am working on interactives etc

oshead

Setting up a rostrum stand would be ideal. It will help you to get the camera exactly horizontal. Of the lenses mentioned above, the EF 180mm would suit best for this. The MP-E 65mm wouldn't be able to capture an image as large as 6x9 inches. If you really want to learn more about this, get the book Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting.

PCPhoto

apologies for not getting back sooner - I might be in Dun Laoghaire in the morning ...8ish onwards (will try make sure I bring the lens/flash).

will drop you a PM with my number

Heebie

I wouldn't photograph them.. I'd use a scanner. it's what it's designed for, and you won't be introducing parallax error to the images (other than that introduced to the image by the original photographing.)
You'll also have much finer control over what ends up in the scan.
If these are for archival purposes, then getting the most detail possible is a must.. and going right to 16-bit/channel color TIF format, or something similar, is a good idea. (Because the response of red, green, and blue can be very different, each of the colors you scan in can give you nuances of detail that will just vanish if you simply scan as black & white.. and of course if they are color images.. you need color... I assume black & white because you said they're old.. which might not be a valid assumption.)

blue5000

Hope nobody minds if I hijack this thread as I want to do something similiar with an old family album. Is there any advantage in using RAW over JPEG? I normally use JPEG for everything on my Nikon D60.

That suggestion of using the scanner: do you need any specific software to do it that way? Seems like a fantastic, simple idea if it works.

dmg1982

blue5000 wrote: »

That suggestion of using the scanner: do you need any specific software to do it that way? Seems like a fantastic, simple idea if it works.

A scanner would be by far the best way to do this provided you can place the images on the scan surface (the OP can't as they're in bulky albums). Any software required should be bundled with the scanner... for my scans I use the SilverFast SE software that came with my CanoScan 9000F to import the images to my main drive, then Lightroom/Photoshop after that to finish them off.

If you're photographing the images, then RAW is the logical way to go - it contains far more data than a JPEG.

Heebie

I always shoot in RAW myself.. but if you're going to be doing ANY editing, you're much better off with RAW. If you're completely satisfied with the way they look right off the camera, then it's not so important.

Most scanners come with software. You can get third-party stuff like Silverfast (which is apparently budled with some scanners) which isn't as flexible as some other software, but is definitely easy to use, and has some really killer features.. I just wish it let you do a lot more on manual control. (the only reason I don't use it.)

blue5000 wrote: »

Hope nobody minds if I hijack this thread as I want to do something similiar with an old family album. Is there any advantage in using RAW over JPEG? I normally use JPEG for everything on my Nikon D60.

That suggestion of using the scanner: do you need any specific software to do it that way? Seems like a fantastic, simple idea if it works.