Making photo of a print

[darkosaric]

So,

This question has little digital - but in presentation purpose.
I would like to make online presentation of my prints, but they are 30x40 cm big, so scanning is not an option. I am thinking about taking the photo with a digital camera (standard canon dSLR small sensor with kit lens).
I will use enlarging mask to keep the print flat and in place, and put in on the chair.
I was thinking to use natural lightning - on the balcony in cloudy day.

Questions: which kind of settings I should use for the lightning, distance from the print (1, 2, 3 meters), f stop, angle of print (print should be vertical and take the shot in same level, or print on 45 degrees and take a shot from above) ... ?
If somebody had done this with success - any comment is welcome.

Thanks.

 

[polyglot]

The usual way to light a print is with a pair of diffused lights (e.g. softboxes or umbrellas), one to each side, pointing diagonally at the print.

Imagine a vertical enlarger with your camera centred where the enlarger head would be above the print. One light that's about 1m left and 1m above the print, second light 1m right and 1m above the print. Make sure the lights are far enough to the side that you get no specular images of them in the print, i.e. thinking of the print as a mirror, place the lights far enough off to the side so that the camera could not see their reflections - that will get rid of hotspots.

 

[darkosaric]

Thanks polyglot. So left and right lights should be behind the camera, right? If lights are 1 m above, then camera is approximately 0,6 - 0,8 m above the print?

 

[wildbill]

Google copy stand or photographing artwork.
The distance from the camera to print depends on the lens used.

 

[RobC]

A3 flatbed scanner is cheap and best option for digitising prints, especially B+W prints IMO. And its a lot less hassle than setting up copy stand etc. I guess it depends how often you think you'll need to use it but it is multi pupose and can be used for document scanning/ OCR too.

 

[jeffreyg]

A copy stand is not difficult to use. If not available consider a tripod but the "film plane" and print should be parallel. The lights should be at a 45 degree angle to the print preferably two on each side. You could use a piece of glass over the prints to keep them flat. With the lights at 45 degrees you will avoid a reflection. I have photographed many prints this way (with a copy stand and four 120W flood light bulbs which are available at most any hardware or home improvement stores). Cloudy days can still have variations in light intensity from one minute to another and it could start to rain. Since you will be photographing a flat object depth of field won't be an issue so I would use the lens set to its optimal sharpness ... often stopped down about three stops from wide open with the appropriate shutter speed. A cable release is also helpful.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[godfatherofpolka]

Just a slightly different idea (if the number of prints is not too large, this should be feasible): Use a regularly sized scanner (i.e., A4-ish) to scan your print in multiple parts (making sure there is some overlap) and then use Photoshop or some panorama software in order to stitch them together. For example, a free solution is Hugin, which you can find at http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ and there's a tutorial here http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/scans/en.shtml. (On a related note, here's someone using this technique for digitizing film http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/.)

 

[Rick A]

http://cuart.colorado.edu/resources/vrc/tips/photographing-2d/

 

[dpurdy]

Unless you do own a copy stand it is easier to square up to a print on a wall. I made a permanent set up in a room and put a couple of wooden strips on the wall with a space allowing enough room for the print to slide in and always be in the same place.... with standardized print size. Then put a light ( I use strobes) on either side at 45degrees from the plane of the print, I like to put the lights a bit higher than the print and aim them down just a bit. I use umbrellas turned around backwards with the strobe light as close to the umbrella as possible to reduce the size of the light source. Then you put your camera on a tripod at exactly the same height as the center of the print, use a small level to make the camera level and level with the angle of the print. Then find the spot left to right where the top and bottom sides of the print look square. Mark the spot on the floor for the center of the tripod so you remember it next time. I use a Nikon digital and set it to daylight but the color is not quite perfect do to the color of the walls in the room. ONce you get it all figured out and marked you can get images that look just like a scanner would give.
Dennis

 

[darkosaric]

Thank you all. What Dennis wrote (and the link from Rick A - the same thing) is easiest to try. I will put print in the enlarging mask, put it on the wall and table, lights left and right on the chairs and camera on tripod. Next weekend I will try it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If your're going to do much of this kind of thing it would certainly help to have a copystand. Appropriate lights at 45-degrees, far enough from the prints not to overheat them, thoroughly diffused so the illumination field on the prints is completely even and consistent. 30X40 cm prints are fairly small, so this shouldn't be much of an issue. Reflections off the print can be a problem, so it helps to cross-polarize the light: polarizer sheets over each light, then an adjustable linear polarizer over the camera lens. A good macro or copy lens helps, though some "normal" lenses are OK. Avoid wide-angle and zoom lenses. You don't want illumination falloff or distortion. Then of course proper balance for the color temperature involved. Prints can be held flat with perimeter magnets and a painted steel copy surface. Everything should be capable of holding proper leveling. I just tore out a huge copy station but saved the lights, in anticipation of building an even
better one.

 

[Dr Croubie]

The photo options are already mentioned, but how about an alternative?
Just enlarge an 8x10" 'proof' print that you can scan, and make it look as identical as possible to the real larger print.
You needn't worry about resolution or anything, shrinking it for web will cut a lot of detail out anyway.

Of course, this only works with enlarged negs, ULF contact-prints would definitely need a camera...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I used to do a lot of art documentation work in a museum. They required a this chart for the printer's reference. http://www.craigfineportraits.com/for_photographers/colors_by_numbers_kodak_chart/

 

[polyglot]

Thanks polyglot. So left and right lights should be behind the camera, right? If lights are 1 m above, then camera is approximately 0,6 - 0,8 m above the print?

Not necessarily. The camera distance will depend on the lens you use. The lights don't need to be closer or further, as long as you make sure that the illumination is even, i.e. the lights are well-diffused, preferably not in the very near-field (i.e. minimal fall-off in intensity across the print from each light) and the camera does not shade any path from any part of either light to any part of the print.

The distance and angle to the lights and their degree of diffusion will depend to some extent on the nature of the surface of the print you're photographing, and how much or how little you want the surface texture to come through in the resulting photograph.

 

[NedL]

I'm glad you asked this question. I've been trying it lately because I seem to be able to make the color and texture of the paper much closer to "real" than with my scanner. I've been using two "daylight" CFLs but having trouble with hot spots. I think Polyglot gave the answer I need, the lights need to be further away. I've found it a little tricky to get the camera perfectly parallel to the print... I can see why a copy stand is useful!

 

[darkosaric]

About scanner: up to now I used scanner A4 - but after I have a picture I need lot of post processing (remove dust that is often in the scanner, unsharp mask, levels, color correction and many other stuff). This is difficult to me because 1) I am not photoshop expert, 2) I don't like to sit on the computer again - that is why I use film .
I have seen some examples where people get great results out of camera without much post processing, I tried without any lightning setup and it is already much less painless than scanner with good/excellent result.
Maybe the problem is that I have old scanner that has lot of dust inside - but I don't want to invest in new one.

 

[polyglot]

I'm glad you asked this question. I've been trying it lately because I seem to be able to make the color and texture of the paper much closer to "real" than with my scanner. I've been using two "daylight" CFLs but having trouble with hot spots. I think Polyglot gave the answer I need, the lights need to be further away. I've found it a little tricky to get the camera perfectly parallel to the print... I can see why a copy stand is useful!

If you have hotspots, the lights need to be at lower angles, i.e. further off to the side. Merely increasing their distance from the print without changing their angle will not help - it will make the highlights become smaller and denser.

Think of the letter W, where the camera is at the central apex and the print spans the two lower points. The camera can directly see everything between the inner arms of the W, and can see reflections via the print of anything within the outer arms. Therefore the lights need to be outside the arms of the W; actually a bit further outside because any texture on the paper will spread the specular highlights.

A wider lens means a wider/flatter W so the camera has a wider view "in reflection" looking out from the print, which means the lights need to be further apart to avoid specular reflection. A longer lens means you can illuminate the print more-perpendicularly and therefore more-evenly without getting hotspots, but you need to be more careful of shadowing if the camera is closer than the lights.

 

[NedL]

Thanks, that is very helpful!

 

[M Carter]

The biggest issues for copy work are lighting and distortion. (My first job as a teen was running a stat camera…) Sounds like you're already dealing with the lighting...

I'd get a t-square and triangle and make a grid (or print one?) and test for distortion and totally flat field of view. You'll be amazed at how much distortion even a quality lens can have if it's fairly wide. And it can be very hard to get the camera exactly square to the print, so that there's no perspective distortion. If you're using a DSLR, see if you have a grid overlay display available in live view - that can really help.

If you're using an APS-C camera (smaller than full frame sensor), keep in mind the lights may still be within the lens' field of view, even though they're not rendering on the sensor. Which means you can have flare - even moderate veiling flare will kill contrast. Try making a small black cardboard mask - essentially a matte box/lens hood idea - and see if your blacks increase with that in front of the lens.

Scanning in pieces? I'd love to see someone do that successfully for a big print. The slightest variation in rotation and you'll never get it perfect. You'll have to use soft-edge masks to join edges, and grain and detail will disappear at your joins when you do that.

 

[darkosaric]

Here are the first results: no lightning used beside big window (natural light).

Attached are 3 files:
dslr_not_unsharp_mask.jpg
dslr_unsharp_mask.jpg
scanner_small_print.jpg

I will try with lightning on 45 degrees from both sides on the weekend.

 

[David Allen]

Unless you do own a copy stand it is easier to square up to a print on a wall. I made a permanent set up in a room and put a couple of wooden strips on the wall with a space allowing enough room for the print to slide in and always be in the same place.... with standardized print size. Then put a light ( I use strobes) on either side at 45degrees from the plane of the print, I like to put the lights a bit higher than the print and aim them down just a bit. I use umbrellas turned around backwards with the strobe light as close to the umbrella as possible to reduce the size of the light source. Then you put your camera on a tripod at exactly the same height as the center of the print, use a small level to make the camera level and level with the angle of the print. Then find the spot left to right where the top and bottom sides of the print look square. Mark the spot on the floor for the center of the tripod so you remember it next time. I use a Nikon digital and set it to daylight but the color is not quite perfect do to the color of the walls in the room. ONce you get it all figured out and marked you can get images that look just like a scanner would give.
Dennis

This is basically my method (except I use two builders lights - colour balance not a problem as my prints are B&W and I set the digital camera to B&W as well) and works very well. I certainly am not going to waste my time doing smaller prints just for the sake of using a scanner.

My prints are 30 x 40 fibre based unglazed glossy. For this reason, the one additional thing that I have in my set up is a large piece of stiff black card with a hole in the centre that is the same as the lens barrel. This is fitted onto the lens and eliminates any reflections on the surface of the print.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[darkosaric]

Here is another example with 2 lights on 45 degrees. Not perfect but good enough for me.
Thank you all for good inputs .

 

[cliveh]

If you have a transmitted light facility on your scanner, why not scan the negatives and reverse them in Photoshop?

 

[darkosaric]

If you have a transmitted light facility on your scanner, why not scan the negatives and reverse them in Photoshop?

Too much post processing work with scanner, and still not so nice as photo of a print, print has nice warm color that I can not so easy get in photoshop editing. I don't want to spend hours and hours in photoshop editing. Also scanner can not get the whole negative size (and little more to get the black edges - scanner mask always cut some part of negative, around 5% ... but we are going in OT area ).

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

All the images on my web site (Dead Link Removed) have been taken in the same way, which is also what I have used when preparing my book, which accompanied my 2011 show. I have followed advice given to me by Chris Woodhouse (of WBM fame). I placed the prints, mounted, either on the floor, or on an easel, which I use for spotting, which I have squared to a tripod-mounted DSLR using a mirror, and aligning the frame edges for squareness. I illuminated with two soft-box studio flashes about 45 degrees left and right, slightly behind the camera.

This yields very good results, and is fast to do, and to set-up when I need it again. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it highly accentuates any surface issues and dust. Some of my prints have large dark areas, and even having blown most of the dust off, some still shows up in the photo, even if it is not visible in normal viewing. The advantage of that is that you get a new, critical perspective on your print handling...