Photographing books, other texts and non-flat photos through glass.

[Keen Learner]

I copy a few lines from my earlier (and first) post to the "New Member" Forum, just as background for this new thread in the "General Photography Discussion" Forum.

***

"My main current interest is therefore in photographing the widest possible number of our family's own possessions, very much including old documents and photos, some of which date back to the last century.

The reason I have invested in two "identical" Canon EOS 70D camera backs, two "identical" Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Lenses and two "identical" UV filters is to use them to quickly take simultaneous photos of all the opposing pages, two at a time, of, say, a handwritten diary.

For that purpose, I need to design, and then have fabricated somewhere in the UK, a hinged "book cradle" (to allow for books where the pages do not open out completely flatly) with appropriately-sized clear glass "plates" to press the pages down in such a way as to avoid all distortions in the images I take."

***

I have found someone today, who may be able to fabricate a wooden "cradle" for me so that is a major leap forwards but the issue of what sort of glass, the thickness and where to acquire it from all remain to be answered.

What sort of glass should I try and acquire that will not lead to distortions or artefacts in the photos that I will be taking?

I have been told by the owner of a top-end photo-lab that I should avoid so-called "non-reflective glass", as its often acid-etched or specially coated surface will apparently play havoc with my end-results.

What thickness should the glass ideally be or, if I go for the "Low Iron" glass that someone suggested I try, maybe I will not have all that much choice as to the thickness, as it might just come in one standard thickness?

I would be most grateful to hear of how others have surmounted these issues and send my thanks in advance for any comments back.

[Mike Buckley]

The glass plates will have to be reasonably thick to bear the stress of pressing the books flat without breaking the glass. My guess (but it's only a guess) is that it will need to be at least 1/4" thick. I'm positive glass that is 5/8" thick will work, as that is the thickness of standard glass made for use as the top of a dining room table.

The ideal setup will be to use a copy stand such as this one. The stand ensures that the plane of the camera is parallel to the plane of the subject. They come in different sizes and some of them also have lamps attached.

In a typical situation, you will want to light the subject using two lights, one on each side of the subject at a 45-degree angle to the subject and at the same distance from the subject. Using two lights at the same distance from the subject will illuminate the subject as evenly as is practical. Lighting the subject at a 45-degree angle will probably prevent reflection on the glass and glare on the subject and will also contribute to relatively even lighting of the subject.

The only way to make that happen is to photograph one page or two pages at a time using one camera. Your second camera will be of no use unless you are willing to light a pair of pages as explained above and use both cameras, one for each page. In that situation, the illumination of each page will not be as even as when lighting one page or both pages at a time. That's because one light will be closer to the page than the other light.

For an understanding of why all of that is true, purchase the book, Light: Science and Magic.

If I was doing this project, I would probably evenly light two pages at a time and capture the image of both pages at the same time using one camera.

[rpcrowe]

Clive,

I am wondering if attempting to "flatten" an open book in order to shoot both pages simultaneously might do damage to however the book is bound. It seems like quite a bit of pressure would be needed to do that type of flattening. I might consider shooting each page individually using a plate of glass just a bit larger than the page you are copying.

I would also think about using a macro lens for the copy work. The rationale behind a macro lens is not that you need to get too close for a standard, non-macro lens, but that a macro lens has better flat field coverage. A 50mm Canon or Sigma macro can be had fairly inexpensively on the used market.

I wonder some more if a full frame camera might not be a better plan. A 5D classic can be had relatively inexpensively while a 5DII (at least on the used market this side of the pond) is also affordable.

I am also wondering if a copier might be a quicker and more painless way to do your copying.

If you want to copy the pages digitally, using a copy stand would be the best way to go.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Falcon-Eye...MAAOSwpDdVHXAn
Just ensure that the vertical column and the camera mount is sturdy enough to handle your camera/lens.

Good luck!

[Manfred M]

Some good advice so far. How many books and other documents are you trying to preserve? How many pages and what is the size range of these books?

I would certainly be very careful in the handling and photographing of valuable old documents. I suspect that these documents are going to be extremely fragile and any mishandling might do more damage to the bindings and paper. The old material, like glues have likely deteriorated over time and unless some high grade, long fiber, low acid paper was used you could be facing brittle paper that can fall apart when you handle it. I would certainly suggest you get some acid-free cotton gloves when handling the material, as you won't want contaminants from your skin causing further damage to the documents.

The spines of these books are likely to be fragile and unless they were designed to lie flat, forcing them to do so will "break the spine" and will likely cause permanent damage and the pages are likely to fall out.

If there is a local museum around, you might want to discuss your plans with one of the conservators to see if they have any recommendations for you, and if not, if they could direct you to someone who has the knowledge and expertise to give you better guidance than the members of this site can give you.

Another consideration is the colour accuracy of what you are trying to do. If you are merely trying to preserve the content of the books, then this might be a moot point as a B&W image would be fine. If you are trying to preserve the colour and texture of the documents, your lighting choices are going to become a bit more complex. The copy stand is likely a good approach, as per Richard and Mike's suggestion. Diffuse and even light falling on the pages at about a 45° angle is a must. As Mike has suggested, an appropriate sized piece of glass is a must and proper positioning of the lights will ensure that there is no reflection on the glass. Ensure that the edges are polished to ensure that you and the materials cannot be cut by the glass.

I would use a single camera setup. Your dual camera plans are not going to work. Each page should be photographed individually (one page at a time) with the document centred under the camera. Lens choice will depend on a number of considerations, but the 50mm f/1.4 lenses are unlikely to be the best choice. I would suggest you shoot at f/8 as this will be a focal length where you will be shooting where output quality will be optimal, The size of the document and working height are going to be what determines lens requirements.

Once you have photographed these documents, you are going to have to decide on storage and how you will deal with "digital rot", i.e hardware and file format obsolescence. CDs and DVDs that you burn yourself are not archival quality and can become unusable in a matter of a few dozen months.

[DanK]

I haven't photographed old books, but recently, we photographed a good number of old photographs, some a century old.

I share the concern about breaking the spines of old books, but I don't have an answer. I too would ask a professional about that.

Re equipment: a stand such as the one Mike suggests is probably ideal, but you can approximate this with a tripod. I used a tripod with the legs splayed (mine has three positions, and I used the middle one) because the weight of the camera, when pointed down, will be off-center.

Given that you have purchased a lot of equipment already, suggestions on that front may not be welcome, but I will add mine for what they are worth. I don't see any reason to switch to full frame. The 70D should have ample resolution. You won't want the narrower DOF of a FF. Given that you are controlling the lighting, you don't need the somewhat better low-light performance of a FF. We used both a FF and an APS-C, and I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference.

I agree with Richard's suggestion of a Canon 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro." It's inexpensive, very sharp, and as Richard said, has good flat-field performance. It's two disadvantages would be of no consequence in your case: old-fashioned and slow AF, and max magnification of 1:2. If you decide to go this route but want a true 1:1 macro for other purposes, the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro is excellent. As Manfred wrote, the optimal focal length will depend on the document. If you are shooting with a single prime lens, you will need a setup that allows you to change working distance depending on the size of the object.

[Mike Buckley]

By the way, especially if you will use this equipment only for this particular project, consider buying used equipment not just for a macro lens but also for a copy stand and lighting system.

My only other thought is to reflect on the fact that there is a wealth of accurate information in this thread. I realize you're getting advice that goes against your initial plans to use two camera systems that have already been purchased. Even so, considering that you're going to so much trouble and are apparently willing to go to relatively considerable expense, you might as well do the project as well as possible and that means using just one camera.

[rpcrowe]

In reading the excellent feedback your original post has generated, here are a few additional thoughts that have crossed my mind while thinking about your project...

1. I would shoot the documents in a darkened room with only the lights illuminating the documents on. This will help prevent reflections and will also help prevent illumination by lights of other color values...

2. I illuminating the pages with the lights at a 45 degree angle would be the best idea. However, the type of lighting would depend on the size of these pages. If the pages are large (say larger than standard business size documents) additional lighting might be required, say a pair of lights on each side of the copy stand...

3. I would use a remote (wired or wireless) shutter release.

4. If the color values of the copies are important, I would ensure that I took that into consideration. Shooting a white balance target (such as the Whibal card) would be one way to ensure proper color balance. There are, of course, other ways to ensure correct color values but, that would almost be an entirely separate topic.

5. You "may" need to enhance the writing if it has been faded or to eliminate stains or other disconcerting intrusions on your pages. The way we once worked to increase the legibility of writing was to use appropriate filters. If the faded ink was blue and we were shooting in black and white film, a yellow filter might be used. I have not researched how I would increase the legibility of faded writing when shooting digitally.

6. Of course, trail runs would be appropriate to ensure the best lighting and exposure.

7. I would shoot an identifying card at the start and end of each group of documents.

8. Quite probably, shooting tethered to a computer might be a good way to go. That way, you would be sure of each exposure and framing group. Your Canon software allows you to shoot tethered with very little extra equipment (except the tethering cord) and with no extra software required.

9. I would not shoot in JPEG but, rather I would capture my images in the RAW format and then convert to a lossless format such as TIFF r PSD,

BTW: I did a google search regarding digitizing documents and most of the hits were regarding using P&S or bridge cameras, not DSLR setups.

The "Family Curator" articles offer some tips, like this one to use Lightroom to catalog the copies. http://thefamilycurator.com/using-ad...ealogy-images/

[Saorsa]

I think I would look for a cheap, used scanner and disassemble it to get a piece of optically flat and clear glass in a frame. Looking at my own combo scanner/printer I could get a very nice piece in a steel frame from it.

You might call a copier/printer store to see if they are scrapping anything that you could salvage the parts from. Some of the larger commercial printers could provide you a very nice, large piece of glass.

You might also look for someone getting rid of an old darkroom enlarger to create a copy stand

As to lighting and reflections you could easily use a polarizer to good effect here.

[Mike Buckley]

I have not researched how I would increase the legibility of faded writing when shooting digitally.

Based on my experience of photographing labels on wine bottles, it's easy to darken the writing and increase the contrast between the writing and the paper by strongly adjusting the tone curve. However, if preserving the faded look of the writing is an important criterion of the project, you of course would not want to make that change.

[Mike Buckley]

As to lighting and reflections you could easily use a polarizer to good effect here.

You would probably need to polarize not just the lens but also the light source. If you have to polarize the light source, make sure the polarizing film does not get too hot depending on the type of light source being used, as it will melt.

Most important, given the flexibility of a studio set up regardless of how informal the studio is, it is extremely likely that the task can be easily accomplished with no need for using polarizers. You only need to get the combination of three factors right: distance of camera from subject, distance of light source from subject and angle of light source relative to the plane of the subject. That sounds difficult but it's really quite easy in a typical tabletop situation. The result of the setup is that both light sources are outside the family of angles and, thus, produce no reflections or glare.

Refer to Light: Science and Magic for a far better explanation of all of that.

[rpcrowe]

One final comment that I have not thought about previously... Hot lights (Incandescent lighting) can possible damage old documents both from the heat they generate and the bright light they produce.

If I were going to photograph thousands of documents, I might consider setting up a system with a pair of studio flash units in softboxes...

In fact that is how I would set up my copying. Simply because, I have studio flashes and softboxes and don't have hot lights...

[Manfred M]

I think I would look for a cheap, used scanner and disassemble it to get a piece of optically flat and clear glass in a frame. Looking at my own combo scanner/printer I could get a very nice piece in a steel frame from it.

You might call a copier/printer store to see if they are scrapping anything that you could salvage the parts from. Some of the larger commercial printers could provide you a very nice, large piece of glass.

You might also look for someone getting rid of an old darkroom enlarger to create a copy stand

As to lighting and reflections you could easily use a polarizer to good effect here.

Sorry Brian - I strongly disagree here. Flat bed scanners are the WORST option for this type of work. They are okay for small runs of loose paper, but are terrible for books as one has to force the spine to get a flat shot. They show every bit of dust and dirt. Most home scanners have a second issue. They tend to be really slow. OOPS - need to read more carefully...

If you set up the lights properly, there are NO reflections, so no need to use a polarizer.

I will agree with the use of an old enlarger table; I used mine as a copy stand for years. In fact, enlarger lenses make excellent copy lenses as they are designed to produce a flat, sharp projection. The downside is that you need a set of bellows to focus them.

[Mike Buckley]

Manfred,

Brian suggested using a scanner only for the purpose of disassembling it to obtain glass designed for the optics. He didn't suggest using it to scan the subjects.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Brian suggested using a scanner only for the purpose of disassembling it to obtain glass designed for the optics. He didn't suggest using it to scan the subjects.

Oops - sorry. The glass in my old scanner is light and very thin and would unlikely work as it is not heavy enough to hold anything down. I took it apart a couple of weeks ago after my 32-bit OS computer died (it's so old that they never ported it to 64-bit drivers).

While it is true that float glass (used in windows) is not perfectly clear (often has a green tint, from some of the other components added during manufacture), it is very flat.

[Keen Learner]

"My goodness gracious me"!

I return to my trusty computer after a bout of extended childcare and am astounded, nay, "blown away", by not just the quantity of replies so very quickly but also the professional quality of every single reply here, very much including the "repeat offenders, who came back for more"!

Thank you so much, every single one of you, for first taking the time to read my post and then add all of your extremely helpful answers.

I feel I have had several "annual subscriptions' worth" of advice from you all and all of this just a day or so after signing up and registering "for free"!

No wonder you are all held in such great esteem!

I am "delaying [my] gratification" by holding off from replying individually to each and every post, as I should be meeting up here at my home with someone this coming Monday evening (18.01.16) and I would relish his input as well on all of the above posts.

He knows all of my equipment very well as well as the software I use (Adobe Lightroom, Bridge and Photoshop) and he will hopefully prevent me from including too many inanities in what I write in response to all that you have written.

I will then try and fashion an answer that touches on all of the advice I have received from you.

What fun to be part of such an active and interesting forum: you are the first forum I have ever posted to, as it so happens, so I couldn't have … er … "lost my virginity" in better company!

My thanks again to each and every one of you for your kindness in sharing your expertise. I have learned a huge amount from you already!

[rpcrowe]

I think that I can speak for many of my fellow members in saying that I am very proud of all of you. Posters asking a question are never talked down to and it seems that we all go out of our way to reply in friendly constructive ways.

I have asked several questions and received almost immediate (since we are working in world-wide time-zones)and very helpful answers. The depth of knowledge of the members of this forum is amazing and only equaled by their helpfulness...

[Saorsa]

Oops - sorry. The glass in my old scanner is light and very thin and would unlikely work as it is not heavy enough to hold anything down. I took it apart a couple of weeks ago after my 32-bit OS computer died (it's so old that they never ported it to 64-bit drivers).

While it is true that float glass (used in windows) is not perfectly clear (often has a green tint, from some of the other components added during manufacture), it is very flat.

That's why I was suggesting a frame for the glass. Thickness isn't as important as strength and rigidity. In fact, a thick piece could lead to internal reflections of the subject.

Think of the bottom surface of the glass on the subject, light at an angle and an internal reflection in the glass creating a double image.

[Mike Buckley]

Is a piece of glass by itself less strong than the same piece of glass enclosed in a frame? I ask because intuitive it seems not. However, I have no idea.

[george013]

Is a piece of glass by itself less strong than the same piece of glass enclosed in a frame? I ask because intuitive it seems not. However, I have no idea.

The glass itself will not change. But a framed piece of glass is different from a single piece of glass. The surface of the frame covering the glas adds strenght to it.
I just wonder why using glass? If it's just used to flatten the pages, there must be some other way.

George

[Saorsa]

The glass itself will not change. But a framed piece of glass is different from a single piece of glass. The surface of the frame covering the glas adds strenght to it.
I just wonder why using glass? If it's just used to flatten the pages, there must be some other way.

George

The strength of the glass is what it is. It will break with a torquing or point load. The frame prevents the torque loads on the glass by carrying them evenly and not loading the glass.