Captain Craig Loc: Denver, CO

I was at my Mother-in -laws today discussing some genealogy. She has some old photographs that I would really like to preserve. I have a portable scanner, but wanted to take some pics also to ensure I had quality reproductions. I haven't downloaded my scanner yet. When I was taking the photos, I had a difficult time getting the camera to focus on such close ups. And now when reviewing the photos, I am not happy with the quality. I have a Canon 5D MK IV, and was using a Canon 28-70 2.8 lens. I would like some suggestions on what equipment I need to take photos of photos with perfect reproduction. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

fjdarling Loc: Mesa, Arizona, USA

An inexpensive solution used by some of us who dabble in macro photography might work for your "close-up" situation: macro extension tubes. They fit between the lens and the camera body to lengthen the light path, allowing the lens to focus at a much closer minimum distance than is possible without the rings. Some have electrical contacts built-in, which allow autofocus to continue working. Some come in sets, allowing you to stack more than one. Of course, if you have a macro-capable lens, that might work even better. Good luck.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I took images of pictures with a EOS 5DIII and 100mm macro. When I eventually changed to a dedicated scanner, the results were finally acceptable. Getting the lighting (no glare) proved to be the hardest issue. The professional set-up is likely near the cost of a scanner. Do the compare for yourself.

mort Loc: california

i have a fuji x100t , and i just photographed some 4x6 b&w prints to send to a relative . i made sure the prints were flat , and steadied the camera with a small box . i processed the images with nix silver efx , and i think the photos look better than the originals . i did not have to set the camera to macro .

domcomm Loc: Denver, CO

I've tried it both ways over the years, and I always get better results from prints with a high-res scanner, such as an Epson V550 or V600, and that way they are always flat and straight. That's harder to do with a camera, even on a tripod

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

With most lenses there is noticeable/measurable field curvature. Using extension tubes will not fix that. If these are important to you, the least expensive solution lies in a scanner, which has no field curvature. A good scanner from Canon or Epson will likely be less expensive than a macro lens, which are generally well-corrected for field curvature. The other issue with photographing photographs is lighting and reflections. These are not issues with flatbed scanners. The more expensive scanners from Epson will include software to deal with dust and Silverfast image capture and editing software. They also feature a dMax of 4.0.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I have a Test Rite copy stand, with angled light bars and use a 50mm lens. It has worked for me since the '70's. I sometimes have put a piece of 16" X 14" X 1/4" thick sheet plastic over the picture to flatten wrinkles. Lighting is critical but the results are amazing. Good luck!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

My Epson V600 scanner does a good job, but there are alternatives.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-scan-and-archive-your-old-printed-photos/
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-ways-scan-old-photos/
https://www.lifewire.com/quickly-scan-photos-4153167

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

If you are going to scan them someday you might want to try your phone for some photos now. I have used my iPhone to scan photos with some success over the years. My scanner is the rosin v-600. I have scanned many a photo, slide and negative over the years.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

Been there, done that! Flattening the print and lighting without glare/reflections was frustrating, tried copy stands, lights at 45 degrees, etc. Ultimately I chose to buy an Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner. Problems solved!

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

I’ve scanned old photos at 300 dpi and they look pretty much like the originals. Then use some editing software to sharpen them up a bit. I’m satisfied with the results.

lhardister Loc: Brownsville, TN

AlanMike

I have been using Epson scanners for years and seems the quickest and produces great results. Plus you can tag the photos as soon as you scan them and save in a many different formats depending on the purpose. Recently I have been using an Epson ES-400 document feeder scanner rather than a flat bed and I can scans 10 4x6 photos at 300 dpi in about 10 seconds. It is really much faster than a flatbed. It comes with nice software as well.

14kphotog Loc: Marietta, Ohio

I use my cell phone's, 20+meg camera. then pp on computer. I have been able to bring out writing on backs of old photos that could not be read on original. PP can make a faded, scratched, discolored photo look fresh.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

At my studio, we do lots of copy and restoration work. For general work, you are most likely better off digitizing your old prints by means of a scanner. Even an ordinary 3- way printer with a scanning mode will scan images to your computer where you can process them to enhance detail, remove some surface damages and spots in the originals.

If however, you want to use your camera, perhaps on prints that won't fit in your scanner you will obtain the best results and close focusing enablement with a macro lens. Even if you have such a lens or purchased on, the caveat is LIGHTING. There are many issues such as surface glare and reflections, certain textures on some photographs, and surface damages, and inconsistencies that cause problems. The best copy setup is 2 POLARIZED light sources, each a 45 degrees to the copy board and a circular POLARIZING filter on the lens. You will need 2 acetate polarizing filters on your lights- the must be oriented in the same direction as per markings on the filter frames. As you rotate the filter you will see the reflections disappear and contrast improve.