Photo Old Photos: I have albums full of old photos I would like to turn into digital but don't want to send them off to someone. So I have been considering reshooting them with my...

chuckbear

I have albums full of old photos I would like to turn into digital but don't want to send them off to someone. So I have been considering reshooting them with my digital camera and doing some post-process improvements. My question is...would it be best to shoot them in raw format for best processing or some other form? Thanks for any suggestions. Chuck

BebuLamar

Certainly raw would help in post but the more important thing is lighting.

truckster Loc: Tampa Bay Area

chuckbear wrote:

I have albums full of old photos I would like to turn into digital but don't want to send them off to someone. So I have been considering reshooting them with my digital camera and doing some post-process improvements. My question is...would it be best to shoot them in raw format for best processing or some other form? Thanks for any suggestions. Chuck

Most here are going to reply RAW ... I usually just scan them at high resolution.

chuckbear

truckster wrote:

Most here are going to reply RAW ... I usually just scan them at high resolution.

I would like to do that but don't have a high res scanner. Chuck

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

Epsom is having a sale on refurbished printers and scanners. There are several hi speed scanners available for a reasonable cost. I purchased one of the more expensive ones because I have thousands to do.

epsom.com

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

RAW is definitely the better way to go. It provides a lot more when it comes to processing. Additionally, I'd process them using Pro Photo color space, for the same reason.

The more important aspect of this venture is lighting. Without being very careful with lighting your creating a lot of work for yourself regardless of the format and color space you choose to use.
--Bob

chuckbear wrote:

I have albums full of old photos I would like to turn into digital but don't want to send them off to someone. So I have been considering reshooting them with my digital camera and doing some post-process improvements. My question is...would it be best to shoot them in raw format for best processing or some other form? Thanks for any suggestions. Chuck

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Epsom??? as in salts?
--Bob

blue-ultra wrote:

Epsom is having a sale on refurbished printers and scanners. There are several hi speed scanners available for a reasonable cost. I purchased one of the more expensive ones because I have thousands to do.

epsom.com

chuckbear

I guess I will have to play around with the lighting a bit. Some of the photos are already starting to fade and loose color. Chuck

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The lighting won't help with the color fading but you can correct that in processing if it hasn't faded too much. One problem is that the colors do not fade at the same rate so you may find you have to pump up the blues a lot more than the reds for example.

The lighting has to be set up so you don't get glare from the surface. If some of the old photos have a texture that can present problems.

Set up a space for your copying that you can leave set up for consistency, but you may need to experiment with those textured prints.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Getting the lighting and no glare on the prints was the hardest, near impossible task, for me trying to take RAW images of old prints. Scanning to a high resolution JPEG proved better. Find the negatives and scanning them to a high pixel resolution JPEG was the best input to Lightroom for finishing.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

My brother lives over 1,000 miles away from me. He has many photos he got when my folks passed away. He had a devil of a time trying to shoot them with a camera (he's not much of a photographer), but found scanning to be much better. I, also, prefer scanning.

If you scan, you probably can't get RAW copies.

therwol Loc: USA

chuckbear wrote:

I would like to do that but don't have a high res scanner. Chuck

Do you have any scanner, including one that may be part of an "All in One" printer? Prints are much larger than negatives, and you don't need "high resolution" to get good results scanning them. I found 600 dpi to be fine for all of the prints I've scanned, ranging in size from Polaroids to 8x10. You can still clean them up and do some post processing if you want. If you're going to do a lot of post processing, you may be able to scan them as .tif files and convert to jpeg later to reduce the size for sharing. (.tif files don't deteriorate with multiple edits.). This may not be available on a scanner that is attached to a printer, but it isn't critical.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If the pictures are mounted in an album you have three choices: (1) try to extract them without damaging the prints; (2) take a photo of the pages (you might want a piece of glass on the page to keep it flat); (3) get a flatbed scanner.

I got a flatbed scanner maybe 20 years ago and it's still running fine. I've used it for all sorts of projects.

"When you get a new tool you will find all sorts of uses for it (some that it was never designed for)".

chuckbear

Thanks for the replies. A scanner isn't an option. The photos are in albums but are easily removable so not a problem. I will set up a space to use for consistancy. I do have a tripod so I plan to try and set it up and something to hold the photo. I am thinking a dark cloth so distinquish the photo better. I also woder about using a separate side flash to help with the lighting? Any thoughts from anyone that has done the same? Chuck

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

Light your photos with two lights, one from each side. Each light at a 45degree angle to the subject photo. Place your camera on a tripod with a macro (flat field) lens. Use a polarizing filter and you will be able to dial all the glare out.

I'm an artist and have been photographing my paintings since the film days with great success. You may have to play with the distance of the lights to the subject photos...Very doable. Raw is my choice for paintings. Color control is a must for me.

Best of luck...you won't need the luck. It's that easy.