Photographing photos: I’m looking to digitize a substantial amount of antique/relic photographs with maximum resolution. I’m thinking using my EOS R & Lightroom (for fixes) would be...

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

I’m looking to digitize a substantial amount of antique/relic photographs with maximum resolution. I’m thinking using my EOS R & Lightroom (for fixes) would be the best solution. Any advice or articles on setup/methodology would be helpful TIA

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Proper lighting with no glare / reflections is very difficult to achieve. Have you considered a dedicated scanner instead?

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

I have a decent epson scanner (about 5 yrs old) I just assumed it would be inferior to the EOS R.

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

CHG_CANON wrote:

Proper lighting with no glare / reflections is very difficult to achieve. Have you considered a dedicated scanner instead?

I have a decent epson scanner (about 5 yrs old) I assumed it would be inferior to the eos R

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

Easiest for me was a flatbed scanner. I covered the bed with photos, scanned them and then popped them into Photoshop to separate into individual files and fix them as needed. An Epson All-In-One printer has a good enough scanner, it's just not as fast as a fancier one. I scanned at 600 except for one tiny 1"X2" that I did at 1200 since it was going to be made bigger.
Slides are another story. You need a scanner with a lighted top or set up a camera and light source (a pain but works well).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

LarJgrip wrote:

I have a decent epson scanner (about 5 yrs old) I just assumed it would be inferior to the EOS R.

If you can't light the photos and get crazy glare / reflections, is it really better?

What defines better? What is the purpose of imaging these photos? Say you scan them to 10MP instead of 30MP, does that hinder / help / zero difference to how you use the resulting image files?

Look deeper at your assumptions, are they correct? are they time efficient? are they the best approach? do they deliver the intended result?

Look at your Epson settings. Do they mirror the ideas presented in this post: Part I - Scanning your old film negatives

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

LarJgrip wrote:

I have a decent epson scanner (about 5 yrs old) I just assumed it would be inferior to the EOS R.

Try a scan at 300, 400, and 600 PPI and see how each does, if it meets your requirements (desires).

fosis Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Admitting that I've not made camera-to-print copies in a while, but having scanned slides and prints recently, the quality of the scanner's light is superior and the detail level provided by it can better too - with some care to ensure the print is really flattened against the platen.

I'm guessing that the quality of your 5-year old scanner is as good as my Epson V600, where you can prescribe the detail level and the file size well beyond that of a 20Mb+ digital camera. And if you take some time with the scanner's exposure controls, you can get a full range of tones. Think of the scanner's file as a great big contact print, comparing that to copying your original into a small digital "negative" and needing to light the original very carefully to eliminate reflections.

camshot Loc: Peterborough ontario Canada

I use a Nikon copy stand and copy photos up to 13x19 on it. I find the best light is at my living room window (large), I have a lovely even north light from it. I have made excellent copies this way, in cases where my file for the photo got lost, or hard drive went south. Your camera with a decent macro, or you normal lens with extender works fine.

BebuLamar

LarJgrip wrote:

I have a decent epson scanner (about 5 yrs old) I just assumed it would be inferior to the EOS R.

I am quite sure your 5 year old scanner would support 600dpi. At that resolution and you scanning an 8x10 then the scanner would have the same resolution as the EOS-R. The EOS-R does have more resolution with smaller print but it's not to much of an advantage. Dynamic range of a print is narrow so if the EOS-R has higher dynamic range it's a moot point.
Lighting a print for copying is extremely difficult. It's not like lighting a slide or negative which is easy.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BebuLamar wrote:

I am quite sure your 5 year old scanner would support 600dpi. At that resolution and you scanning an 8x10 then the scanner would have the same resolution as the EOS-R. The EOS-R does have more resolution with smaller print but it's not to much of an advantage. Dynamic range of a print is narrow so if the EOS-R has higher dynamic range it's a moot point.
Lighting a print for copying is extremely difficult. It's not like lighting a slide or negative which is easy.

The EOS R creates pixel-based digital images, specifically 30MP. The Epson scanner also creates pixel-based digital images where 'dots' have absolutely nothing to do with pixel-based images.

BebuLamar

CHG_CANON wrote:

The EOS R creates pixel-based digital images, specifically 30MP. The Epson scanner also creates pixel-based digital images where 'dots' have absolutely nothing to do with pixel-based images.

You would see there is a dpi setting in the scanner software. I don't care what you say and what that means but there is such a settings. If you set for 600dpi and scan an 8x10 it would give you about 28MP file.
Check the specs of the Epson V600.
https://epson.com/For-Home/Scanners/Photo-Scanners/Epson-Perfection-V600-Photo-Scanner/p/B11B198011
I don't care what they mean by dpi but there is such a specs with the scanner.
and this is from the scanner manual page 49
https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/prv6ph/prv6phug.pdf

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

Thankyou to everyone for taking the time to respond. After reconsidering and for the sake of convenience, scanning is likely the better option. 🙏🏼

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BebuLamar wrote:

You would see there is a dpi setting in the scanne... (show quote)

Using advanced settings based on pixel dimensions are discussed in the linked post: Part I - Scanning your old film negatives

When you focus on the pixel resolution of a pixel-based images, you begin to see the foolishness of 'dots' in an all-pixel digital world.

BebuLamar

CHG_CANON wrote:

Using advanced settings based on pixel dimensions are discussed in the linked post: Part I - Scanning your old film negatives

When you focus on the pixel resolution of a pixel-based images, you begin to see the foolishness of 'dots' in an all-pixel digital world.

I don't care what you mean. Because it's only a matter of terminology but I know what a setting of 300dpi would give me. I know what the scanner with 600dpi resolution can deliver. Scanner manufacturers use the term I know what it means I don't care if you say it's not the correct usage of the term.