Scanning Photos with Your Camera | Peter Krogh

Your digital camera can be used to make very high quality scans of film and prints at unprecedented speed and cost. These techniques are in use in the Library of Congress, at major museums and in photo collections worldwide. Learn how the process can help you digitize photo collections on a scale that you never thought possible. This video gives essential information t anyone who needs to digitize a collection: including photographers, family historians and corporate media managers.
Peter Krogh will present the techniques from his new book Digitizing Your Photos with your Camera and Lightroom.
Topics include:
• The camera scanning advantage
• Hardware setups for scanning prints, slides and negatives
• How to ensure top quality
• Using Lightroom for camera scans
• Tagging your images
• Publishing and sharing your scans
Shop at B&H:
bit.ly/TheDAMBook
The DAM Book
thedambook.com/
Check Out More Event Spaces
bit.ly/BHEventSpacePlaylist
Subscribe to the B&H Photo KZbin Channel
bit.ly/SubscribetoBHPhoto
Follow us on Social Media
-- / bhphoto
-- / bheventspace
-- / bhphoto
-- / bhphotovideo
-- / bheventspace

[@Spuzzmacher]

It's funny how much work we used to do to square the camera block reflections on our rigs. Nikon made a $120 ES-2 attachment that threads into the filter threads of their 50mm macro lens, and voila, a dark barrel straight to the slide, perfectly squared up, nothing between the neg and the sensor but that macro lens, and with a 96mp pixel shift option on the Zf, they just made the whole process very cheap and easy.

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

People, you don't need a $2,000 copy stand set-up. Check out the various KZbin videos on using the "Wali" flat screen mounting system. I use it and it is solid. Total cost, around $100. Your mileage will vary depending on how sophisticated you want to make it and customize it to your situation. All of the other advice and suggestions that are presented here are absolutely valid. And, I bought his DVD collection to aid me on my travels into this fascinating voyage of discovering my past.

[@leeseh7137]

Do you have a link I cannot find Wali being used for photo "scanning"

[@leeseh7137]

This is EXACTLY what I have been looking for!

[@danwaterloo3549]

this was fantastic. thanks for creating the video and publishing it for us!

[@df0rce]

Great great knowledge sharing! Thanks!

[@bodinian]

Thank you for the comprehensive video. The polarizing filter part will fix my problem camera-scanning glossy photos

[@carlgrooms2344]

thank you soo much! this is fantastic information. i have 75 years of family photos, slides, and negatives. i will have time to do this in a couple of months. lots of slides from my fathers twin lens Rolliflex

[@leeseh7137]

How'd your project go, Carl? (Just curious)! :)

[@curtishalley2481]

If there was an equivalent detailed demonstration like this one, but instead for polaroids, that would be amazing.

[@megalumpproductions5362]

Rather than painting the ceiling black, or otherwise trying to deflect light reflection from it, why not just put a black umbrella, or something similar right on top of the camera?

[@WestCoastDP]

I flip my negs upside down to save a step of 180 degrees flip. I also found a used Schneider 50mm enlarger lens that works great. Adapter rings are cheap. In the 90's as a pro photographer, I made multi-media shows with 6 Ektagraphic projectors. Did special effects by shooting dupes from the original slide using a bellows. Fun days.

[@frisospoelstra4776]

Thanks for the interesting lecture! I wondered, what are the two lamps you're using?

[@dukenukem5768]

@33:05 : You could do with a camera with a flip screen, especially if it were higher for a big print. In film days for copying I used an interchangable viewfinder camera (Pentax LX) with a "waist level" finder, so I was actually looking into the finder on the level,

[@SkonrokkenTV]

Very good, very usefull! Just bought a copy stand after using a 35mm film scanner for 20 years. Vastly faster.

[@HenryHeerschap]

Excellent material. I've purchased the course, but need to find the time to go through it, not to mention finding the time to do the work. I've been thinking about creating a website to make the images available to the larger family as we're scattered across the US. Your use of Lightroom collections give me some good ideas on how to organize such a site.

[@peterkrogh9689]

Henry, In the book I outline a couple options for sharing on the web - SmugMug, Adobe Cloud, and PhotoShelter. These can all be done with direct integration through Lightroom.

[@FrankMcClung]

One note on exposure of images with digital cameras, you should overexpose your images to just before you start losing data with highlights (i.e. white patches with no data show up in your camera's live view if you have that feature). Why? Digital camera's CCDs collect more data for better detail and lower noise when overexposed. Then correct exposure in Lightroom.

[@interurbans]

This method of copping certainly is faster and easier than scanning. But even with the best of modern high-quality cameras, 21 MB is about the best you can do, a minimum of 50 MB would be needed for archival storage. Also accurate color, and contrast as well as detail especially in shaded areas can be problematic when taking a picture of a picture. Lightroom on the back end does help, but with a better original, less work is needed on the back end. Your description of the ability to caption and find an image is excellent. What good is the greatest picture if you can't find it? Great presentation thanks.

[@ironmonkey1512]

there are plenty of full frame around 50mp now, and with pixel shift easily capture in the 100s

[@giannidigirolamo8868]

At the cost of that setup you could buy an Epson v550 which is a good scanner for 35mm and medium format. I use my camera to digitalize my film too but with the only purpose of social sharing. That’s more than enough.

[@HV71851]

Thank you for the information on this video. I been using my DSLR now for a few months to digitize and restore images. Can you share a formula or a methodology to charge for my services? I appreciate your input, thank you!

[@BandH]

This would be something we can look into for you. If possible, please e-mail us directly to [e-mail] so we can review your options.

[@gerardbellouard9696]

Great ! but how do you handle non flat prints ? with a piece of glass on top of it ?

[@BandH]

That would work. Be careful regarding any glare or reflections. >Mark

[@FilNenna]

Great presentation, though I think the word 'preservation' is misused. Digitization is great for access, distribution and sharing, but the original negatives and prints are likely to outlast any digital storage medium.

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Well said. Agree completely

[@peterkrogh9689]

From an archivist's point of view, you can certainly make a distinction between preservation of the physical document and preservation of the underlying image. And there is also a distinction that people in cultural heritage make between a reproduction copy, a preservation copy and an access copy. But for many people, those are distinctions without a difference. The digital copy of the photographic object might be the *only* copy that is actually used. As to the long term survivability of physical archives I think it's important to factor in all the cost and effort to maintain the archive - storage furniture, climate-controlled storage, and the indexing of the material. This is all before you factor in the labor to actually make the images available, which typically requires the labor of a trained and dedicated collection manager. The sad fact is that many collections - both institutional and family ones - are being lost because it's seen as too expensive to do proper preservation work. And of course the vast majority of photographic images are simply not archival, no matter how much money and effort you spend on storage. Most color film and prints have faded significantly over the years. Digital storage is still active storage - you need to tend to it and spend money on it. But as a person who manages both a physical and a digital collection, I have far more confidence that the digital collection is going to last longer and be in better shape and be used more than the physical collection will be. (YMMV)

[@dukenukem5768]

​@@peterkrogh9689 : The digital images will last longer in principle, but where will they be? Not long ago people put them on DVDs (and even floppy disks), but few people can read DVDs now. Put them on a pen drive, and it will probably be tossed without a second glance by some great-grandchild. Put them in the cloud and the cloud company goes bust, or after you pass away no-one even remembers they are there, or they don't have, or lose, the password. Then file formats will change : jpeg, DNG and lightroom will be history. OTOH there is more chance that a physical print album will make people stop and look. I have photos from 100 years ago, and they still look good.

[@Beauty.and.FashionPhotographer]

This is great but should be re-done with today 2022 hardware, bigger sensor Kameras , and also software (Shooting negs with 50mb sensors and then using photoshop Raw interface , which can flip negatives easily now ) all are all so much better.... much more advanced.....

[@Lesterandsons]

Great. I used a flatbed scanner,that delivers raw dng, it is fine for me, but with large photos camera may be interesting but i won't invest in macro stuff. Use of lightroom is very powerfull for metadata, develop... printed on fine art gives good results you can share.

[@CezarPopescu]

leaving quality aside, the biggest problem of flatbed scanner is TIME. it takes 3-4 minutes to do a prescan, scan, eventually a second pass. with a camera with a repro stand it takes half second per scan. and when you have several hundreds/thousands of negs…

[@MichaelWellman1955]

If you used a lens hood would that stop the reflection from the lights?

[@themikepadua]

Good question! It would not stop the reflection from the lights, because the light is reflecting off of the surface, not spilling directly into the lens from the light.

[@thorirv]

Didn't get the name of the 135 carrier, mentioned just before 54m. Anyone know?

[@sealand000]

Carlwen

[@riddleexperiments5843]

If one was starting from zero, what would be the best camera and lens to scan both pictures and negatives? I have thousands of pictures to scan and I only want to do it once.

[@BandH]

Which camera would be recommended would depend on your budget. That being said, three camera options I would recommend for copying pictures and film negatives would be the *Nikon D850 DSLR Camera (Body Only),* _B&H # NID850,_ the *Nikon D500 DSLR Camera (Body Only),* _B&H # NID500,_ or the *Nikon D5600 DSLR Camera (Body Only),* _B&H # NID5600B,_ for your usage needs. For a lens recommendation, the *Nikon AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Lens,* _B&H # NI6028GED,_ would be a high-quality macro lens compatible for use with all three camera options listed above.

[@riddleexperiments5843]

@@BandH Your answer is why I always buy from B and H. But one more question. I want to convince my local historical society to buy the Nikon D850, the Kaiser Copr Stand RS1, and the Kaiser RB 5070DX2. Can promise results equal to a good flatbed scanner at 600 DPI? The society has hundreds of old blank and white pictures, as well as hundreds of negatives, that we only want to scan once. Naturally any buying tips (bundles) etc would be appreciated.

[@paragonpicturesuk]

i've never heard of a polarising gel filter to be attached to the light fixture, is this an American expression for neutral density ? How does it work?

[@BandH]

A polarizing filter added to a light would reduce the risk of reflections or glare when photographing reflective objects. This is effective when shooting paintings or other object with a glossy surface. A neutral density filter placed on a light would only reduce the output in a set amount of stops, depending on the density of the filter itself.

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

@@BandH Thank you.

[@FrankMcClung]

I use a polarizing gel filter on each of the two lights (make sure they are polarized the same way and at a 45 degree angle to the photo surface. Then use a circular polarizing filter on your camera (turn the filter until the glare is gone on the photo).

[@sarajcory7425]

157 years, give or take!

[@ulfbjerre2941]

A trip to Danmark ...Never as a dane understood why it is Denmark in english and not Danmark ...You can say A´s ... anyway thanx for the tips

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Why would you scan FFA photographs? I thought they would have been made with archival process and would last much longer than a digital image.

[@peterkrogh9689]

The FSA photos are being rescanned due to the fragile nature of the physical material, as well as degradation of some originals. But mostly, they are being rescanned so that they can be accessed - down to the reticulation in the individual silver halide grains. These *are* being done in the context of true preservation. These are, arguably, sacred documents in the history of America, and they are a proving ground for some really remarkable capture processes. Also, as I watch this video, I don't make it clear that my Library of Congress work is not related to the FSA photos. I know some of the people on that team, but I work most closely with people in the general conservation department, not Prints and Photographs.

[@gadamwoll]

Cant you just use a tablet for a light box?

[@jebemligashta]

I am glad to see George Lucas is into DSLR scanning!

[@WestCoastDP]

One more thing. LED lights for duping slides and negs is not good. LED's have a uneven spectrum that weighs toward green, etc. I find a used Tungsten enlarger color head has better color.

[@superspap]

This might have been true in the past, but is it still true with high CRI LEDs?

[@WestCoastDP]

@@superspap A good Tungsten incandescent bulb has a 100 CRI. The high CRI LED's I've seen are 90 to 98 CRI. YUJILEDS makes that high 98 CRI, might be good enough.

[@buyaport]

May work great with 135 (35 mm) film. Not appropriate for medium or large format!

[@peterkrogh9689]

I would not dismiss so quickly. While it's true that drum scans for larger film will produce a larger file, you may not actually see much of a difference in the vast majority of uses. Scans from medium and large format originals are excellent and can produce stunning prints at very large sizes. I have tested many different cases - APSC up through 8x10 originals. Made outputs up to 36 inches. Put these in front of a wide variety of experts from many different disciplines in imaging (Library of Congress, Archiving conferences, professional photographers, independent scanning and printing consultants, etc). The typical responses range from "these are outstanding" to "these are very good", with the majority at least calling them at least excellent. That said, while I'm a booster of the process, I'm also in favor of full information for all readers, including an accurate description of the limitations. If you're interested in making actual comparisons to outline the limitations, I'd be happy to do any appropriate comparisons. (e.g. scan the same image with different devices to see the true limitations).

[@gerardbellouard9696]

if you need more pixels, you can zoom in and shoot multiple parts and re-assemble them as a pano in lightroom

[@dukenukem5768]

Why not?

[@WestCoastDP]

Wrong. Works fine. I've sent Costco some of my 2 1/4 digitized shots, blown up to 24 inches and they look great. Besides, how many people are going to make prints? Maybe 5 percent or less. Most will view on a computer screen.

[@35mmlove_eric]

I just use Google PhotoScan. Isn’t that MUCH simpler ?

[@Waloshinblog]

Way lower quality.

[@corgikun2579]

I just use the phone camera, no extra apps. Isn't that MUCH MUCH simpler?

[@dukenukem5768]

@@corgikun2579 You are easily satisified then.