Metaphotofilter:

May 5, 2008 2:04 PM

What's my best bet for photographing old photographs from many old books?

I have been offered a gig this summer (for a friend of a friend) that I'd love to accept. It will consist of digitizing about 300 mostly 19th century photographs selected from what has been described as a "carload" of books. I suspect that photographing them will likely produce better results than scanning (there may be some gravure but mostly halftone). Also, I'd like to use the project as an excuse to acquire that DSLR I've had my eye on.

I suppose many thousands of dollars of lenses, lighting and other equipment could be used for such a project. However, if my potential client had the budget for an experienced professional, he wouldn't be considering me. That said, I'm confident that I can give him more than acceptable results, and gain some new knowledge and skills in the process.

So, what would be the best type of lens and lights on a shoestring for taking these pictures? Also, any hot tips for getting good results? Finally, what might be an expert's going rate for such a job, including cropping, any retouching, and file management, so I can set a reasonable price for my admittedly novice services?

posted by donmateo to media & arts (10 comments total)

I would think that scanning them in on a high resolution scanner is going to be your best bet. The only times, for me at least, that it's made more sense to photograph them with a camera is when they are too big to fit on the flatbed.

A scanner is many, many times higher resolution than a camera will be.
posted by MythMaker at 2:11 PM on May 5

There are scanners specifically designed for books and software that will remove the curvature when they lay open. Think of it more like a medical device where the book lies open and the scanner moves over and above the pages.

That's the best way, though not the cheapest.

More info here.
posted by nedpwolf at 2:24 PM on May 5

If I'm doing the math right, a 600dpi (not that expensive now) scan of an 8.5x11 page is effectively about 33 megapixels. You get higher resolution & easier lossless imaging from a scanner. A scanner is much better suited for this.
posted by Pronoiac at 2:32 PM on May 5

As a an information student with a partial specialization in digital preservation, I can assure you that scanning is what you need, not photography. In all likelihood, your local university has large flatbed scanners perfectly suited to this task - you should call 'em up and ask whether non-students have access. In my experience commercial scanners have the technology, but are usually just a tad too small for anything over 8.5x11, unless you have a large budget.

This is my favorite tutorial for a basic rundown on digital imaging from picking out the image to putting it up for display. It's aimed at librarians, preservationists and archivists, so I expect you will be able to skip a bunch of chapters (metadata, management, stuff like that), but I'm linking you to this one because instead of just teaching you broad guidelines for types of images ("600 dpi for black and white"), it also explains how to "benchmark" the images you have and use the basic formulas to figure out the exact dpi you need for them. It also discusses color balance, contrast and things like that. So it's a great resource all around.

If you have any questions about this, mefimail and I'll give it my best shot. I don't mind, I actually have a digital preservation assignment due in the next few weeks, so it'll be good review! *g*

Sorry, can't help on the cost - these things are usually either dealt with in house or farmed out to big digitization companies. If you still want to do it yourself, I would start tallying up the time you research on this and deal with it all in terms of cost of research and labor.
posted by bettafish at 3:07 PM on May 5 [3 favorites]

Some more information to consider:

These are not being scanned for long-term archival purposes, but rather for a photography historian to use in PowerPoint presentations at his lectures. The reason I concluded that photography would likely be superior to scanning for these images is because of the Moiré effect that often occurs when scanning halftone images.

There are many techniques for fixing this distortion through scanning and processing. But all of these appear far more labor intensive than setting up a camera and lights, fussing with the focus now and then and otherwise firing away. Remember there's a carload of books involved, so there's likely to be quite a variety of halftone resolutions, each of which requires an adjustment to the technique for eliminating Moiré.

I could be out to lunch but the click of a shutter strikes me as a quicker solution than the grind of a stepper motor, even if they can play Beethoven.
posted by donmateo at 4:05 PM on May 5

You need a copystand. I used to use one when I worked in a slide library. I would use on to take photos (to make slides) from all kinds of books.
Just Google it and you will find examples. You just need to find on that will work with a DSLR or make one yourself.
posted by nimsey lou at 4:46 PM on May 5

FWIW, I used to work at a museum, and our photographer was frequently removing moire patterns from the images he shot with a camera -- so will using a camera rather than a scanner really eliminate that problem? He also spent far more time doing image correction (in Photoshop) than taking the actual photographs -- like, an hour to shoot 20 things and then 2 days to process them. He was (is!) a perfectionist, but still... Then again, despite all this he was using a camera rather than a scanner -- so maybe, as nimsey lou says, you just need a copy stand!

As a professor (of the history of prints and photography) currently, trust me when I say that your photo historian might not realize it now, but will deeply, deeply appreciate it when these images are higher-resolution than he thought he needed. Projectors are going to get better resolution, he's going to want to zoom in, or any number of other things are going to come up where the higher resolution will be so much more than welcome.

Also, on the scanner-vs-camera note: I scan things all the time -- almost daily -- from books of varying vintages, and only very infrequently get any visible moire patterning. Have you tried scanning a representative sample of your guy's books to see what happens?

And one last point -- one challenge of using a camera that's entirely eliminated by a good scanner is the problem of light. At the museum we had two synced strobes set up to create an even fill light across the object being photographed (this rather than permanent really-bright light for a variety of reasons, including conservation ones that you, too, should keep in mind). Uneven lighting across an image is annoyingly difficult to correct and often creates equally annoyingly visible artifacts when the image is at all compressed.
posted by obliquicity at 4:50 PM on May 5

In my experience you'll get far better results, faster, by scanning. The effective resolution is much higher and you don't have to worry about focus, lighting, lens distortion, perspective correction or (on a properly profiled system) color correction -- all of which will be issues if you use a camera instead of a scanner.

I've scanned hundreds of LP and 12" single covers over the past few years. I've tried a couple of times to move to a photo-based workflow, but found that it was actually faster, easier, and yielded better results to scan the sleeves in two passes on a legal-sized flatbed and stitch the halves together in Photoshop than it was to photograph them. I'm sure it'd be different if I had a copy stand and a better lens for my camera, but using a tripod and a Digital Rebel XTi with the stock kit it was extremely difficult to get consistently in-focus, undistorted results.

I use an ancient UMAX Astra 1200S + VueScan Pro, calibrated against an IT8 target. Moiré has never been an issue for me on this setup, though most sleeve artwork is screened at a pretty high resolution. Just don't assume it'll be a problem for you unless you've tried it. It's going to depend on the source material.
posted by Lazlo at 5:35 PM on May 5

It is much easier to hold a book flat by scanning it against the scanning plate. If the book is not held flat then you will deal with uneven lighting, poor focus, and a host of other problems.

I have a book that Kodak used to put out for Professional Copy Photographers and the science behind good copies is very intricate. Lighting itself is not just slapping two lights on either side of the object and calling it a day. You have to worry about reflections, hot spots, polarization, etc. The light from a scanner is much easier to deal with and gives a better result. The best lens for copy photography is a flat field lens which isn't easy to find. I have to chime into say that a good scanner automates and simplifies the creation of document and image copies that no camera can match.
posted by JJ86 at 8:49 PM on May 5

Thanks for all the info folks. Scanning now looks to be the undoubtedly better bet. So facile is the hive mind that it even answers the question you didn't ask. Cheers!
posted by donmateo at 11:56 AM on May 6