Scanning vs. Re-Photographing

[Rich54]

I have a 7 x 5 black and white photo that's 30 years old, taken with a 35mm film camera. The original photo has been kept in an album all this time and is in pretty good shape. If I want to digitize it, am I better off scanning it or taking a photo of the photo? Below is the photo in question, which I scanned a few years ago at a local self-serve store. I'm not crazy about the quality of the scan---the actual 30 year old print that I have looks better to me---and now I want to use this photo for a project. Would I get better results from a new, high-quality scan, or should I attempt to take a digital photo of the old photo print with my Canon EOS 450D?

Edit: the image below is not 7x5. I guess I must have cropped it years ago when I originally scanned it.

 

[Paul]

You wouldn't still have the negatives by any chance?

 

[chrisdesign]

I think you can achieve a much better quality than this by rephotographing the original image with your camera. Try it.
Of course a professional scan would be my best bet, though it is quite expensive.

 

[Rich54]

Thanks to both Chris and Paul. I don't have the negative, so I will give re-photographing a try. I read a few articles about it that suggested I do it outdoors on an overcast day with diffuse light. I'll re-post it here after I've done it.

 

[thebestcpu]

Hi Rich

Camera vs scan is one question and the other question is how good was your original scan.

Original scan quality
- Do you have sufficient resolution for the final print size or viewing size you need
- Was it scanned to a high quality format or a very compressed JPEG
- Was the scanner have enough dynamic range to pick out the details in the highlights and shadows of the print?

Camera vs Scan
- You can get great results with a good camera and a good scanner and there are some differences
- Scanners are easier to get a full field in focus. This can be done with a camera if you have a copy stand and good lighting setup
- Scanners virtually all have the resolution you need. You need to verify that for the print size you are going to make that the camera has enough resolution for you final product
- Camera and copy stand has the option to position the side lighting to eliminate and reflections if the print is glossy or matte texture issues. This can be much harder of impossible with a scanner if there is an issue


In you last post you mentioned taking the image outside with your camera. You can give it a try yet the image needs to be flat, the camera angle to the print needs to 90 degrees from both planes to have an even focus, and you need to have very even illumination. Best to use a tripod to also avoid any motion blur. You may find that getting even lighting over the image is harder than you think.

If you want a quality digital image, you might just consider taking it to a pro/camera shop that can either do a high quality scan to TIFF format or using a high quality camera with a copy stand setup. If the image is important enough, it might be worth spending a small amount of money to get it right and save you time.

Best wishes on your project no matter which way you go.

John Wheeler

 

[Rich54]

Thanks for the info, John. I'm going to use the digitized photo to make a cover for a music CD, so the final output size of my project will be 4.5 inches square. The original photo itself is 7x5, so after cropping, the digital image size of the actual person (who is me in my younger days) will be about 100% of what it is now in the old print. It sounds like I should go get a professional scan. I do have a tripod, but I don't have any photo lights and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about lighting.

 

[Tom Mann]

John W did a great job in summarizing the differences between scanning an object and re-photographing it, but let me add my 2 cents (as usual, LOL). Especially cogent are his remarks that both scanning and re-photographing a print require skills that take time to develop, especially the latter.

IMO, most pro photographers have easy access to both techniques, either by subcontracting the work or doing it themselves. So, they would likely make such a decision on the basis of the what's the best technique for the particular object, not on their level of skill and what particular equipment they personally own.

Re-photographing (done well/correctly) is clearly the method of choice if:

• the object is larger than even large bed specialty scanners (ie, more than a few feet on a side)
• the object can't be moved (eg, a painting that was done directly on a wall, not on a canvas)
• the object has some significant depth or texture (...think deep-pile rug or an object with creases or tears)
• the object exhibits "glints" (ie, it specularly reflects light at certain angles like some impasto oil paints - crossed polarizing filters help spectacularly with this)
• you want to be able to adjust the amount of texture that is portrayed in the digitized version (eg, by changing the angles of the lights from near normal incidence to near grazing incidence).

Scanning is preferred if none of the above are true, and/or if absolute geometric accuracy is important (eg, architectural drawings), and especially if one has a lot of similar objects to digitize. The latter is an important consideration because of the relatively long setup time and readjustments almost always necessary between each object to be rephotographed.

In the case of your print, given the above guidelines, scanning is clearly the way to go .

Also, to be honest, the scan that you had done is just horrible. Almost any scan that you would have done these days would likely be better than what you posted.

HTH,

Tom M

 

[Rich54]

Also, to be honest, the scan that you had done is just horrible. Almost any scan that you would have done these days would likely be better than what you posted.

Tom M

Yes, the scan I had done was about five years ago at a local Kinko's photocopy store using their self-serve kiosk. I believe I paid about 75 cents... and apparently I got my money's worth but not a penny more. I live in Manhattan, so I've got many professional digital processing shops available to me. There's a place called Duggal that has been around forever and does a lot of high-end work. I'll try them tomorrow and post the result.

 

[Tom Mann]

Great! If you would post the result of their scan (at full rez, ie, at least 300 pixels per inch when scanning), I know that several of us would be very interested in seeing it.

Thanks,

Tom M

 

[Rich54]

For those interested, I received my new scan of the 30-year-old photo at the top of this thread. They offered an 8mb scan or a 25mb scan. I chose the larger size, which is 3600 x 2500 pixels at 300ppi. I think the quality is much, much better, especially in the face, hair and white shirt. It looks the same as the original print from which the scan was made. The PSG website won't let me post the full 25mb TIFF file, so I had to crop it and convert to JPEG to meet the criteria for uploading.

 

[Tom Mann]

Congrats! That's a much better scan! As you can see, it's both sharper and almost all of the "lumpy" look present in your first scan is now gone.

BTW, flatbed scans usually make the film grain more visible, so you may be tempted to try to reduce the grain using one of the many noise reduction algorithms / plugins available. Unfortunately, few are optimized for B&W NR, so it's easy to wind up with an over-softened mess. So, be careful to avoid over-softening by carefully applying different amounts of NR in the various spatial and brightness areas of the image and using increases in contrast to make the grain less eye-catching.

Here's a quick attempt at NR on the last image you posted. PS - I also straightened out your image.

Cheers,

Tom M