Scan or shoot
Jun 12, 2020 06:26:28 #
I have a couple of old photos that I would like to turn digital.
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
Jun 12, 2020 06:37:48 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
mjmgka wrote:
I have a couple of old photos that I would like to turn digital.
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
I have shot both ways and it appears to me anyway that I get much better results with scanning.
Jun 12, 2020 06:57:49 #
I prefer scanning - Epson V600. It's easy, fast, and very adjustable.
Jun 12, 2020 10:11:51 #
I scan.
(My scanner software can also enlarge small (wallet) prints.)
(My scanner software can also enlarge small (wallet) prints.)
Jun 13, 2020 06:08:15 #
Jun 13, 2020 07:47:51 #
domcomm
Loc: Denver, CO
I always get much better results with my Epson V550 scanner, and VueScan software.
Jun 13, 2020 08:48:46 #
billnikon wrote:
I have shot both ways and it appears to me anyway that I get much better results with scanning.
Been there, done that, same conclusion by far!Jun 13, 2020 14:53:45 #
mjmgka wrote:
I have a couple of old photos that I would like to turn digital.
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
Scanning is far better for numerous reasons.
Jun 13, 2020 15:06:55 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Scanning is far better for numerous reasons.
Any surface imperfections will be copied perfectly.
I would have a professional create TIFF files if just a few slides are to be duplicated.
Jun 13, 2020 15:28:26 #
Camera buyer
Loc: Las Vegas
If the original will fit on your scanner, use it, you'll get a better result without all the paraphernalia needed to copy eg, tripod, easel lighting, and post processing.
Jun 13, 2020 16:08:41 #
rehess wrote:
Any surface imperfections will be copied perfectly.
I would have a professional create TIFF files if just a few slides are to be duplicated.
I would have a professional create TIFF files if just a few slides are to be duplicated.
Have you ever scanned with a good scanner and software?
Jun 13, 2020 16:59:08 #
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=11233468&t=646873
The above link is to a similar question I answered a few weeks ago.
Scanning an original photograph will usually yield a good file that you can enhance, restore detail to, heal damages and defects in post-processing, and make excellent reproduction prints.
If the original will not fit in a scanner, or if it is curled, brittle, or just too fragile, you can copy it with your digital camera and create the starting file, however, depending on the surface of the original and its condition there can be glare and reflections that require polarization of the lights and the use of a CPL filter on the camera lens.
The post in the link has the lighting diagram and outlines the method. A macro lens is ideal, especially for small originals but a normal or medium- telephoto (85 to105mm) lens will do a good enough job.
The above link is to a similar question I answered a few weeks ago.
Scanning an original photograph will usually yield a good file that you can enhance, restore detail to, heal damages and defects in post-processing, and make excellent reproduction prints.
If the original will not fit in a scanner, or if it is curled, brittle, or just too fragile, you can copy it with your digital camera and create the starting file, however, depending on the surface of the original and its condition there can be glare and reflections that require polarization of the lights and the use of a CPL filter on the camera lens.
The post in the link has the lighting diagram and outlines the method. A macro lens is ideal, especially for small originals but a normal or medium- telephoto (85 to105mm) lens will do a good enough job.
Jun 13, 2020 17:06:52 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Have you ever scanned with a good scanner and software?
My Nikon LS-2000 is quite good - better than any consumer-priced scanner on the market today, but I cannot justify the price of one - or even one by Plustek - if one is scanning just a few slides, which why I recommend having a pro do the job in that case instead of using a jury-rigged camera-based system.
Jun 13, 2020 17:30:23 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
mjmgka wrote:
I have a couple of old photos that I would like to turn digital.
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
What would yield better results, scan them or use a copy setup with lighting and a camera?
Scanning is easier by far, copying requires much more time and care to achieve equal results. I prefer to copy. But then, I enjoy photography.
Jun 13, 2020 18:14:18 #
rehess wrote:
My Nikon LS-2000 is quite good - better than any consumer-priced scanner on the market today, but I cannot justify the price of one - or even one by Plustek - if one is scanning just a few slides, which why I recommend having a pro do the job in that case instead of using a jury-rigged camera-based system.
My scanner removes dust flaws and restores color that cannot be done by the copy in a camera.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.