Jump to content

A3 scanner or copying stand system


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

(I liked the polarised light use with faded prints).

Yes, I have had to copy some prints where the silver had come to the surface but so far haven't used polarisers, it looks very effective. Sometimes just playing with the lighting, or moving the print around under window light can eliminate it on one side and then through the magic of digital you can combine (or even blend) different shots.

Polariser sheet (16"x12") can be bought here:

 

https://www.stage-electrics.co.uk/shop/sales/lighting/colour-filter-and-gel/sheets---lee-polariser-filter/product.aspx?code=568-7174

 

or on ebay in fact.

 

Rosco 7300 is another option.

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison
Additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I wouldn't be able to use my 24-105

You need to invest a few pence in a charity wristband. Turn it inside out if you don't want to advertise the charity. Fit it half over the zoom ring. No more creep.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Russell said:

You need to invest a few pence in a charity wristband. Turn it inside out if you don't want to advertise the charity. Fit it half over the zoom ring. No more creep.

Well, funny you should say that....not knowing about them at all I actually picked one up off the ground at an event and it is perfect. As you say they are pretty cheap anyway and easily obtainable, search for "silicone wristbands" on ebay and there are loads, plain as well. I'm guessing that they are all the same size. From what I've read the 24-105 f4 L suffers from this and is not easy to fix, some seem to have sent their lenses back to Canon and it still creeps. For macro I'd still tape it but day-to-day it solved my problem. I like to know what focal length the lens is set to before I lift it to my eye to take a picture and fumbling around with the zoom after it has slipped out to 105 is no fun. 

 

Thanks.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I have had to copy some prints where the silver had come to the surface but so far haven't used polarisers, it looks very effective. Sometimes just playing with the lighting, or moving the print around under window light can eliminate it on one side and then through the magic of digital you can combine (or even blend) different shots.

Polariser sheet (16"x12") can be bought here:

 

https://www.stage-electrics.co.uk/shop/sales/lighting/colour-filter-and-gel/sheets---lee-polariser-filter/product.aspx?code=568-7174

 

or on ebay in fact.

 

 

 

Mine are smaller and thicker material, but that's because I have only used them on my strobes. (To copy artwork behind glass in museums.)

I have a sheet peeled off from a display screen somewhere, which polarizes, but I've not tried it yet. That would be a free diy solution. All lcd screens seem to have them.

 

I've just checked: I have one peeled off, but one still glued to the plastic sheet and that's much easier to use. Because it's in front of your light the optical problems with the lcd layer still in place don't matter much. I had expected it to work as a polarizer also. (I've not done any research on those. Just looked at them and had a light bulb moment a while back.)

 

Anyway: the bigger the lights (like the Kaiser strip lights that Krugh uses) the bigger the polarizer films, because you will have to be able to turn them a bit to get the best result. At a 90 degree angle to the one on your lens. If you're in a dark studio, the ones on your lights will be the reference and they can be small: 2 from 1 Lee sheet. But when you're in a well lit museum, no such thing: your lens filter will be the reference.

 

The usual color cast of polariser sheets are no problem anymore with digital, as long as you use the same material on both lights. Which gives a Lee filter the advantage.

 

wim

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

The photos are firmly fixed down onto the card, they couldn't be removed. The card is very stiff and inflexible.

 

Another thought. Are the images only on one side of the card?  If they are then it should be possible to remove layers of the card from the back until it becomes a lot thinner. That would improve your chances of flattening them down.

If prints are on both sides then that idea is out of the window.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

Would it be possible to remove the images from the thick card or are the images printed directly onto the card?

If it was possible to remove the images they would flatten a bit easier.

 

An alternative technique is to use a long focal length lens and photograph from a distance, that way the waviness is much less visible. You do need to be more careful about depth of focus and edge softness though.

 

I photograph glass covered framed pictures this way to avoid reflections. I put a large black cloth on the floor. Stand the picture almost vertically on the edge of the cloth and leaning backwards very slightly (so it doesn't fall). Set the camera on a tripod with a longish lens 150mm+ and angled slightly downwards and pointing at the centre of the picture. The camera is angled downwards enough that reflection in the glass is only of the black cloth making it almost invisible. Take the shot and then sort out the keystone correction in LR. If I use f/11 I usually find the sharpness is fine across the frame. Many of these were taken through glass this way. But if I had a studio and lamps, I'd use polarised light sources and a filter, as shown in the video.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

An alternative technique is to use a long focal length lens and photograph from a distance, that way the waviness is much less visible. You do need to be more careful about depth of focus and edge softness though.

 

 

 

Yes I was thinking of using enough distance/depth of field to smooth out the bumps and then see if I can correct the image proportions/distortions in PS.

 

Somehow I have become distracted and am having a day checking a pile of old external HDs and trying to fin and match up all the leads and plugs which are in a huge tangle. I am learning patience....slowly.  I'm sure that I put all this stuff back neat and tidy last time but it all seems to muddle itself up once I put down the lid of  my storage box.🙁

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes I was thinking of using enough distance/depth of field to smooth out the bumps and then see if I can correct the image proportions/distortions in PS.

 

Somehow I have become distracted and am having a day checking a pile of old external HDs and trying to fin and match up all the leads and plugs which are in a huge tangle. I am learning patience....slowly.  I'm sure that I put all this stuff back neat and tidy last time but it all seems to muddle itself up once I put down the lid of  my storage box.🙁

I always leave the power cables connected to the hard drives, when I store them away.

The cable I roll around the power plug in the hope they do not cuddle and muddle up over time. 

Unfortunately cables are a bit like snakes and I am sure they are alive;

There is just no other way to explain the chaos with all the knots they get into after a year of plain storage. 

Thats even true for the neatly rolled up cables around the power plugs, doh. 

 

In German we have a word describing that state of entropic cable chaos (not that German has a specific word for everything .... :))  

- we call it Kabelsalat, literally "cable salad"- Bon Appetit 🤓

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 15:57, geogphotos said:

 I'm sure that I put all this stuff back neat and tidy last time but it all seems to muddle itself up once I put down the lid of  my storage box.🙁

 

Interbreeding?

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 15:57, geogphotos said:

I'm sure that I put all this stuff back neat and tidy last time but it all seems to muddle itself up once I put down the lid of  my storage box.

There must be a blockbusting animation film for children to be made here. How about it Disney?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, hdh said:

In German we have a word describing that state of entropic cable chaos (not that German has a specific word for everything .... :))  

- we call it Kabelsalat, literally "cable salad"- Bon Appetit 🤓

 

Kabelsalat ... hahahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites

I0000SPcy30xXAVQ.jpg

 

This is using natural light through the French Windows, album on the floor on a cushion, tripod just about overhead approx 80cm high, corrected edges in RAW, spotted, slight sepia filter, black and white points set by dropper. All in focus, grain is good, just the figure at the very back against the wall shows a new 'speckles' in his black clothes which is acceptable to me.

 

ISO 100

Shutter 1/40

Aperture 4

Focal length 85

 

4686 x 3494 pixels

Approx 46 Megapixels

 

Any comments would be very welcome. As I said I really am a total beginner at this so will not mind any sort of comment.

 

Being told my mistakes now will be very helpful.

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I0000SPcy30xXAVQ.jpg

 

This is using natural light through the French Windows, album on the floor on a cushion, tripod just about overhead approx 80cm high, corrected edges in RAW, spotted, slight sepia filter, black and white points set by dropper. All in focus, grain is good, just the figure at the very back against the wall shows a new 'speckles' in his black clothes which is acceptable to me.

 

ISO 100

Shutter 1/40

Aperture 4

Focal length 85

 

4686 x 3494 pixels

Approx 46 Megapixels

 

Any comments would be very welcome. As I said I really am a total beginner at this so will not mind any sort of comment.

 

Being told my mistakes now will be very helpful.

 

Tonal range looks good at small size, but not possible to judge sharpness and noise etc at that size. Nevertheless I'd be inclined to reduce the aperture to around f/8. This maybe closer to your lens's maximum sharpness sweet spot, but more importantly it will increase depth of field so that the non-flatness of the prints you're copying is less concerning.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it best to process these in colour? The urchins above were RAW processed in colour to start with..

 

Converting to Adobe monochrome in RAW removes many of the Adjustment options in PS proper when the image is open.

 

Doing it in B &W also produces a much smaller file. 

 

The  prints do have a colour cast - yellowish/ sepia - and converting to straight black sea whites makes them look unnatural to me. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally you might have a neutral grey card in the shot, or take a separate shot with the same lighting on the day, a Gretag Macbeth Colorchecker or an X-rite Passport. That's if you want to keep a record of the actual tone of the original, depends how much it matters to you. Result looks very good to me, no hint of waviness. Natural light is very forgiving.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Many thanks Mark. Here is section at 100%

 

I0000_PWr3fWIc1Y.jpg

looks perfect to me as is.

 

Looking at the original, which you said is 4686 x 3494, the crop is kinda half width of the picture.  

The crop comes at 500x347, so would suggest the original is kind of 1000 or 1200 in width. 

Are you sure this is a 100% crop? 

 

Edited by hdh
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hdh said:

looks perfect to me as is.

 

Looking at the original, which you said is 4686 x 3494, the crop is kinda half width of the picture.  

The crop comes at 500x347, so would suggest the original is kind of 1000 or 1200 in width. 

Are you sure this is a 100% crop? 

 

 

This is 1284 x 960 

 

I00008Ckl964Mejs.jpg

 

 

I0000SYLx5b4qBP8.jpg

 

 

 

My confusion over 100% might because on My newish Mac it doesn't give me 100%! Don't ask me....

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've put some of my first efforts with various experiments here.

 

https://geographyphotos.photoshelter.com/gallery/Vintage1890s/G0000JTLfmWCaC_k/

 

The last one is certainly 'off' but that's it for today. The rain has arrived and I've had enough.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

I've put some of my first efforts with various experiments here.

 

https://geographyphotos.photoshelter.com/gallery/Vintage1890s/G0000JTLfmWCaC_k/

 

Great images! They look much better in their original colors I think. You do have some reflections though, like in the street pump's upper left corner. Sometimes, with a warped subject, it's enough to just put it upside down. I use a piece of shiny black plastic (back cover from some report) to check for reflections if I have to work in natural light.

 

wim

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Great images! They look much better in their original colors I think. You do have some reflections though, like in the street pump's upper left corner. Sometimes, with a warped subject, it's enough to just put it upside down. I use a piece of shiny black plastic (back cover from some report) to check for reflections if I have to work in natural light.

 

wim

 

 

Thanks Wim especially for identifying the reflections - I didn't even notice. 

 

My apologies but I don't understand what you mean by putting the picture upside down. So with the plastic you put that where the print is going to be positioned to check for reflections - is that correct?

 

Just experimenting today. They are great images so I want to do them justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting project! Looks like you're almost there with the technique. Slight refection showing on NaplesMarino, upper right. Having done lots of this type of work with window light, I know you will soon see these reflections instantly. I think Wim means to simply rotate the original and try again as the reflection may not show on a lighter part of the original. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.