How to take a picture of a picture?

On Jun 11, 7:23 pm, wrote:
> I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> extreme basics.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions or help!

I inadvertantly forgot to mention that I use a simple copy stand with
two lights to illuminate the photos. Thois setup usually works well.

Regards,

Jeff Stevens
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
wrote:
> ? ?????? ??? ??????
>
>
>
> > I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> > successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> > photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> > photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> > A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> > with my digital camera.
>
> > I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> > results????
>
> > I have an Olympus C765.
>
> > Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> > (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> > offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> > extreme basics.
>
> > Thanks for any suggestions or help!
>
> well, in my film days I used technical pan and used a feature of my
> enlarger, which could have a special camera holder so you put the original
> on the margeur (positive holder?) and took a photo, I think with my best
> prime which was the Nikkor 50 mm 1.4.I used 2 common spot lights to
> illuminate the pictures.Results were quite good.Now, in the digital era, I
> presume you have to use a good camera (dSLR or hi end P&S) with good
> macro?But without an enlarger, how are you going to place it over the
> photos?(My enlarger was Meopta Opemus 6, a Czech manufacture.Maybe shoot
> with flash to eliminate all camera motion?Anyone with better ideas?
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
> major in electrical engineering
> mechanized infantry reservist
> dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For a perfect result, one definitely should consider using a remote
triggering device. A radio trigger that activites simultaneously both
the camera and the light source is the fanciest, I suppose; but
anything that eliminates camera shake will help mightily.

Regards,

Jeff Stevens
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote:
> I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> extreme basics.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions or help!
>
You will need an inexpensive copy stand and a pair of Clip-On lights.
A very inexpensive but satisfactory stand can be purchased for $40.
See:
http://porters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PCS&P...uct_Cod

Clip on lights can be bought at Office Depot for about $12 each.
You might already have a few desk lamps that you can bring to the
project at no cost.

Having said that, I can't imagine why your scanner can't do a great job.
That is precisely what they are designed to do.
I have scanned many antique photos, over 100 years old, with excellent
results.
Whatever method you use, you might want to brush up on some very basic
editing skills.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

? ?????? ??? ??????

> I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> extreme basics.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions or help!
>
well, in my film days I used technical pan and used a feature of my
enlarger, which could have a special camera holder so you put the original
on the margeur (positive holder?) and took a photo, I think with my best
prime which was the Nikkor 50 mm 1.4.I used 2 common spot lights to
illuminate the pictures.Results were quite good.Now, in the digital era, I
presume you have to use a good camera (dSLR or hi end P&S) with good
macro?But without an enlarger, how are you going to place it over the
photos?(My enlarger was Meopta Opemus 6, a Czech manufacture.Maybe shoot
with flash to eliminate all camera motion?Anyone with better ideas?



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote

> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

Use a tripod to mount the camera.
Shoot outside while its sunny but shoot in the shade
in a reasonably open spot so you get good light without
shadows.
Set your camera to maximum zoom to minimise the
risk of parallax.
Set the image on a suitable mount, like an artists easel
or somesuch. Use a larger backboard to give the
autofocus something to work with.
Position the camera at a suitable distance away from
the image trying as best as you can to position the
camera perpendicular to the centre of the image, again
to reduce the risk of parallax
Set the camera to timer, no flash. shoot.
when you get the image onto the computer you can
clean it up a bit and boost the contrast. Crop out any
remaining parallax.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

"Chris Gilbert" wrote:
> wrote
>
>> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

I don't really have much to add to what Chris has said
here, other than to point out that this sounds to me
like the voice of experience talking! Chris has it
right, and hit at least a little on just about every
point I can think of.

>Use a tripod to mount the camera.

That is absolutely essential. So is using either a
remote release or the camera's timer to trigger the
shutter. And so is mounting the work to be copied on an
easel or using some other method that allows perfect
alignment (the camera's sensor should be exactly
parallel to the work being copied, though corrections
can be made with post processing software).

>Shoot outside while its sunny but shoot in the shade
>in a reasonably open spot so you get good light without
>shadows.

Another alternative which works very well is to shoot in
a basically white room illuminated via large windows
facing either early morning or late afternoon sunshine.
A cloudy day is not bad either, if the windows are large
enough to get really good light. The idea is to use
very soft diffuse light. (Creating that with artificial
lights is possible, but not nearly as easy.)

>Set your camera to maximum zoom to minimise the
>risk of parallax.

I'd go just back from maximum zoom unless you have an
unusually good lense. There are too many aberations
with most zooms at the zoom limits.

>Set the image on a suitable mount, like an artists easel
>or somesuch. Use a larger backboard to give the
>autofocus something to work with.
>Position the camera at a suitable distance away from
>the image trying as best as you can to position the
>camera perpendicular to the centre of the image, again
>to reduce the risk of parallax
>Set the camera to timer, no flash. shoot.
>when you get the image onto the computer you can
>clean it up a bit and boost the contrast. Crop out any
>remaining parallax.

One image with a grey card to use for white balance
might be a good idea too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

Chris Gilbert wrote:
> wrote
>
>> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?
>
> Use a tripod to mount the camera.
> Shoot outside while its sunny but shoot in the shade
> in a reasonably open spot so you get good light without
> shadows.
> Set your camera to maximum zoom to minimise the
> risk of parallax.
> Set the image on a suitable mount, like an artists easel
> or somesuch. Use a larger backboard to give the
> autofocus something to work with.
> Position the camera at a suitable distance away from
> the image trying as best as you can to position the
> camera perpendicular to the centre of the image, again
> to reduce the risk of parallax
> Set the camera to timer, no flash. shoot.
> when you get the image onto the computer you can
> clean it up a bit and boost the contrast. Crop out any
> remaining parallax.
>

Exactly what I would say. And, depending on what quality you require,
it might be worth renting a dSLR and macro lens. Made with the
intention that flat field work be close to optimal.

I did a forty-page scrapbook that way, and with more care it would
have been more perfect, but it was plenty good for recording and
archiving the content. One white-balance of a Canon 20D and a Tamron
90mm lens, which required quite a distance to encompass a whole
scrapbook page at a shot. Individual items would have been done at a
closer range, but with the 20D, crops were entirely satisfactory.


--
Frank ess
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote in message

>I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> extreme basics.

Always try scanning before photographing. Mount the camera securely,
pointing down, and take a macro picture under diffuse light. I generally
work in the daytime and let the ambient light of the room do the job. The
results for these tiny images can be stunning, since they are actually
negatives, and may contain enough detail for enlargement. Some of the
images are tinted, and should be treated as color images, unless there are
stains or other repair issues that call for removing the color.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:23:16 -0000:

h> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of
h> the pictures with my digital camera.

h> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
h> results????

h> I have an Olympus C765.

h> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic
h> photographer (point and shoot with little frills) so any
h> suggestions should be offered in novice terms as I'm not
h> familiar with anything beyond the extreme basics.

I'd use a decent scanner with as high a resolution as possible.
Old family pictures often need a little editing to deal with
damage and loss of color and I almost always need to work on
them a bit with PE or Printshop.


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

In article ,
wrote:

> I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas? I'm am a very basic photographer
> (point and shoot with little frills) so any suggestions should be
> offered in novice terms as I'm not familiar with anything beyond the
> extreme basics.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions or help!

My old Durst M301 enlarger stand works very nicely as a stable platform
to copy anything. Set up on a desk with 4 spots, it worked very well for
me.
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote:

> I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????


It sounds like you are talking about daguerreotypes or something similar,
which have what is essentially a negative image on a polished metal
surface, this appears as a positive image when illuminated correctly.

To get a good image you need the illumination at the correct angle with
respect to the viewing angle, for best results you would want the camera
square-on to the photograph and then move the illumination around until the
image looks right.

One thing that might help here is that it doesn't matter if the image as
illuminated looks positive or negative whilst taking the photo, since a
negative one can be inverted digitally afterwards.

For even illumination something like a light box or other large diffuse
source of illumination will probably help to ensure the whole picture is
lit up the same.

One thing to note about daguerrotypes: don't be tempted to take them out of
the glass case to get a better photo of it: the glass-fronted case is (or
should be) air-tight and should not be opened, since the delicate image
will oxidise on exposure to air. (This caution might not apply to some
similar technologies such as tintypes however. Tintypes used enameled metal
I think. There are also ambrotypes which have an image on the glass itself
with a black backing.) Yours do sound like daguerrotypes but if in doubt
get expert opinion as to what they are exactly as the photos are probably
quite valuable.
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

if wrote:

> wrote:

>> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
>> with my digital camera.
>
> It sounds like you are talking about daguerreotypes or something similar,
> which have what is essentially a negative image on a polished metal
> surface, this appears as a positive image when illuminated correctly.

Just thought I would add, I would seriously consider getting a professional
photographer to photograph them for you. Trying to get a good picture of
tricky things like this can be an exercise in frustration if you don't have
the right equipment and expertise. Any decent commercial photographer will
be experienced in photographing tricky products such as glassware,
silverware, art objects etc and with their studio setup they will be able
to do a better job in an hour than a non-professional would manage after
several days of hassle and well-meaning advice from friends and internet
folks.
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture? 

wrote in message

>I am currently trying to save old family photographs, and I have
> successfully scanned dozens of old photographs. Some of the
> photographs do not scan well, and some of them are old metal
> photographs 100+ years old that I have not even attempted to scan.
>
> A friend of mine suggested that I try taking a picture of the pictures
> with my digital camera.
>
> I am curious, how should I go about doing this for the best
> results????
>
> I have an Olympus C765.

Some time ago I did a few simple experiments with a C750. I don't have any
fancy lights, so I did 3 simple tests:
1) Scanning (on a rather old PaperPort scanner)
2) Indoors, near a window, in full shade.
3) Indoors, near a window, in full sun

Generally the ones in full sun gave the best results. Exceptions were some
some very glossy photos, which had some odd reflections in full sun.

Remember to set manual white balance. The C750 calls it One-Touch White
Balance. Put some white paper in the place where your photos will be and use
that to set the white balance.

Use a tripod. Use a remote or the self timer to trigger the shutter.

Results a good for P&S.

MG
 >> Stay informed about: How to take a picture of a picture?