Lenses close up photography and inside museums photography

[Chris M]

Hello photographers,
Can someone help me with the following:
1) which lenses are recommended for close up photography of old photos (small sizes +/- 5x8 cm)?
2) light conditions in musea and churches are sometimes quite poor and I usually am not getting very satisfactory results with a Leica X1/Leica V20. I might buy another camera and an adequate lens(es). I avoid using the flash.
Would a Fujifilm X Pro1 though dating from 2012 be an option or another system?

Thank you for your advice
Chris

[benm]

Hello photographers,
Can someone help me with the following:
1) which lenses are recommended for close up photography of old photos (small sizes +/- 5x8 cm)?
2) light conditions in musea and churches are sometimes quite poor and I usually am not getting very satisfactory results with a Leica X1/Leica V20. I might buy another camera and an adequate lens(es). I avoid using the flash.
Would a Fujifilm X Pro1 though dating from 2012 be an option or another system?

1. For copying photos a scanner is more efficient. If you don't have a scanner you will need a macro lens and appropriate lighting.
2. Most museums don't allow a tripod or flash. Sometimes you can find a place to set your camera down (for example, top of railing). Otherwise high ISO or shooting raw are your only other options (for some cameras it does not matter what the ISO setting is). In churches there are a lot of opportunities to use backs of chairs (with beanbag), flat surfaces or columns to steady the camera, though you can't always get the optimal viewpoint then. I have on occasion set the camera on the floor to get ceiling shots. If you had in mind shooting a wedding that's a whole other ballgame.

[Black Pearl]

A Fuji Pro1 with a 60mm micro would be a good option as would any DSLR with a Macro lens.

[loosecanon]

A zoom with reasonably close focus I find useful when photographing stuff inside glass cases. Though you can spend money on devices that wuill attach to the case to stop reflections I am not sure if in pratice they would be allowed. I use a rubber lens hood with if necessary a rubber extension, so I can put the lens in contact with the case (the lens hood enables a little flexibility and angle adjustment) this cuts out most of the reflection from the glass case.

[William W]

. . . which lenses are recommended for close up photography of old photos (small sizes +/- 5x8 cm)? Would a Fujifilm X Pro1 though dating from 2012 be an option or another system?

A macro lens.

My interests include Photo Restoration. I usually use the EF 50F/2.5 on a Canon 5D Series body, mounted on a Copy Stand. I use 2 Colour Balanced Hot Lights set at 45° to the Baseboard. I use this lens because it has an exceptionally correct field of view and a flat plane of sharp focus and is exceptionally sharp: as such it is a much used lens for copying flat works of art, maps and documents for the purpose of insurance records, forensic evidence and similar. The lens provide 1:2 (x0.5 magnification) but the “Life Size Converter EF” can mounted on the camera end of the lens to provide 1:1 (x1.0 magnification).

A Fuji X Pro with the aforementioned Macro Lens would be suitable.

If you want excellent copies of already good prints, or if you want to repair poor quality prints then good Lighting and the understanding of it, is important.

Scanning can give good results. I have a sophisticated Flat Bed Scanner, arguably the results from a scanner will somewhat depend upon the software (image control/manipulation) options of the scanner.

Much of your choice will be dictated by the USES of these copies – for an example of two extremes - if you have a gazillion family photos that you want to move to digital files and the end use is low res screen slideshows or computer wallpaper then scan them – on the other hand if these are a set of important photos and you want the best quality, then investing in a lens/camera/stand and good LIGHTING and also having a controlled and semi-permanent working environment will greatly benefit you.

***

. . . light conditions in musea and churches are sometimes quite poor and I usually am not getting very satisfactory results with a Leica X1/Leica V20. I might buy another camera and an adequate lens(es). I avoid using the flash. Would a Fujifilm X Pro1 though dating from 2012 be an option or another system?

Making Images of displays in Museums I consider:
1. Tripods, Monopods and Flash may be prohibited
2. Ambient Light is low level
3. Exhibits are sometimes behind glass
4. Access and freedom to roam is restricted

Therefore Camera System qualities I look for are:
1. Good, High ISO performance
2. Ability to capture raw files
3. A Standard Zoom Lens
4. A Fast Lens
5. Capacity to use Circular Polarizing Filter
6. Image Stabilization
7. Short Minimum Focusing Distance Lens

For interiors of Churches almost the same criteria apply

I have a Canon DSLR SYSTEM, so whilst I provide an example in Canon gear, there are equivalents in other brands.

I have a passion for Church Architecture. I tend to use a 24 to 105 F/4 IS on a 5D Series Camera. I do usually carry a very fast Prime when travelling and that is usually a 35/1.4 – but usually the IS of the slower zoom provides more leverage, than the fast Lens Speed of the Prime. Although F/4 (for the zoom) is not the fastest Standard Zoom Lens (i.e. 24 to 70 F/2.8), it does have Image Stabilization and the trade-off of one stop of lens speed for the IS, is most worthwhile, especially across the (vast) 24 to 105mm zoom compass. For an APS-C Format cameras, a 17 to 55/2.8 Lens, with IS, would be suitable. Expect to work at about ISO3200, A camera with quality ISO 6400 capacity is certainly a benefit.

There are better choices than a Fuji X Pro system for this work.

***

24mm at the wide end of a Zoom Lens used with a 135 Format Camera Format (or around 17mm for APS-C Format Camera) is usually wide enough to get a wide interior scene, even at very at close range, especially if you are prepared to wait to get the Viewpoint you require and a clear shot:



*

This (below) by comparison to many, was very low level Ambient Light – 1/13th Second at ISO3200 Hand Held (with IS):



*

Explanation of the use of CPL:



Which allows this to be shot through a glass case:




WW

Images © WMW 1974~1996 / AJ Group Pty Ltd (AUS) 1997~2015


Addendum:

IF you can set up a tripod inside a Church, then consider HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging)

This fellow has some very nice work.

[Chris M]

Good morning fellows,
First of all my sincere thanks for your replies. Indeed I realize the difficulties ( low light, no tripods, angles, no flash). Allow me to expand on the purpose of my questions: a few years ago I enrolled in the History of Art course at the univ. of Louvain. After 6 years I obtained my BD. The courses brought me to musea/churches and other interiors. Fascinating period though but quite difficult sometimes to document. Hence my ongoing interest in art, churches and certainly photography.
My concerns about photographic equipment are: equipment shouldn't be to cumbersome (weight).
Old photographs relate to hundreds of family pictures which I would like to preserve for my grandchildren (I am also writing about my familylife during the late '40's and '50's).
Bill you are an expert in this domain as I gather from your pictures and reply: your advice about the specific requirements is great
But how would you set up based on my info, a fairly efficient system i.e. Camera body a zoom and a fast lens, (I referred to the Fuji X Pro 1 as it comes quite cheap nowadays and looks a nice camera, but you hint at better systems).
I know it is not a simple question but abide with my 75 year old passion. Thanks a lot for your advice.
Chris

[DanK]

I am not an expert on photo restoration, but I have both scanned and photographed a fair number of old shots. One thing to keep in mind, I think, is that if the photo is small, you make use of only a small fraction of a scanner's possible resolution, but you can position the camera to use all of its resolution. Someone who knows more about this can chime in if I am misunderstanding.

[John 2]

The one advantage of the Fuji X system is the high ISO performance of the DX size X-Tran sensor in a relatively light body with prime lenses that open up to f1.2 or f1.4 (23mm, 35mm or 55mm) which when you are struggling with shutter speed in low ambient, is very useful to have.

[proseak]

What exposure are you using?

[William W]

. . . if the photo is small, you make use of only a small fraction of a scanner's possible resolution, but you can position the camera to use all of its resolution. . .

Yes correct, but that might not necessarily be a problem for Chris. That's why I asked about the USES of the photographs and Chris mentions he wants to "preserve", (note not "restore") "hundreds of family pictures".

*

Chris,

Regarding the hundreds of photos (prints) that you want to 'preserve' for your family:

If these prints are mostly in good condition and at an approximate minimum size 5cm x 8cm, then a reasonable quality (A4) flat bed scanner would be what i would use. Have a look at some FB Scanners with the credentials or better than the Canon 9000F MkII. Consider using a standard Post Production workflow, likely (from my experience) to include: sharpening and probably a contrast and brightness boost, Lightroom would be a good programme to use.

The important element that I will stress is TIME – the (repetitive) process can drive the most patient person . . . nuts: so I would advise that you consider editing (culling) the “hundreds” into ‘one hundred of the best / most necessary’ and then do those first. Just consider for a moment working at a relaxed pace with a nice coffee: each scan set up and execute - 1 minute; file transfers and batch processing - 1 minute each; cropping and finishing each image nicely - 5 minutes each . . . that’s 700 minutes (and I am reasonably quick at this process)

You could consider scanning a bed of 4 images at once on one A4 sized scan – that works well if you group the images that are similar in contrast, exposure and lighting conditions

However (and note well) – if you are setting about to do ‘hundreds’ and the quantity and ‘preservation’ is more important than any ‘restoration’ – then a scanner will be quicker and more efficient and less expensive than a macro copy set up.

***

Regarding making images inside Churches and Museums:

My key concern is (you NOT having) Image Stabilization. Do not underestimate the value of Image Stabilization when compared to only having Fast Lens Speed for this type of work. The Fuji X System does have some IS Lenses. If you choose a Fuji Pro-X System, then I think that the best lens for the job would be FUJINON XF18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS.

I had a quick look at (B&H) US prices and an X-Pro1 and the Lens mentioned would be about US$1500 - and the kit price of Canon 6D with a 24 to 105 is $1649 after the rebate – I don’t know if the Fuji with that lens can be bundled comes in a kit.

My opinion is the 6D and 24 to 105/L the overall better tool for this type of work (but not by much) and generally a DSLR is overall better camera system upon which you might build (by a long way) especially considering the amount of second hand lenses on the market.

However, I note you value compactness and weight – the Fuji wins on that criterion and also I understand that you might NOT want to build a bigger camera system.

Note well - I am certainly not biased against Fuji nor do I dislike mirror-less cameras I use a Fuji x100s and it is a great camera. There’s really not much in it, between a suitable DSLR and a X-Pro Mirror-less with a suitable lens.

Whatever you choose I think you should evaluate these main criteria (equal weight to these three) and ensure that what you buy meets these:

> Image Stabilization

> Good Quality, High ISO imaging

> Good Zoom Range – (“equivalent” 24mm at the wide end 80mm or more at the tele end)

Good luck with your endeavours.

WW

[William W]

A couple of additional thoughts about Churches and Museums came into my mind as we was clearing up our set this evening –

1. A Fuji X-Pro System (or any APS-C Format) will have an advantage over a 135 Format Camera in s far as at any given aperture the DoF will be greater, which means for example, if you have an EV that requires F/5.6 @ 1/15th @ ISO 1600 (and you had a 6D for example) and then you pulled out your Fuji, you could shoot F/4 @ 1/30th @ ISO1600 – OR – F/4 @ 1/15th @ ISO800 and still have the same (actually a bit more) DoF

2. The squashing the rubber lens hood onto the Glass which ‘loosecanon’ mentioned (Post #4) – I carry a black velvet cloth in my camera bag; it is about 1000mm x 1000mm and I can “drape it” as necessary to shield reflections if the CPL doesn’t work. I carry GAF tape too, but that can be naughty to use, if you are caught.

WW

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Chris,

Good advice above.

A couple of thoughts;
Would you be able to have an accomplice to assist you when shooting through glass?

I was thinking of adapting Bill's idea of the black cloth, if you had it attached to a pole (bit like a flag) which an assistant could quickly whisk over your head when you're ready to shoot, I envisage them holding the pole against the case with your camera underneath it.


Digitising 5 x 8 photos: I agree on the concept of 'do the best first', I did that when I shot hundreds of images at my daughter's wedding reception, I graded them all, then filtered by star rating, processing only the "best" in first round, then only picked out the "next best" that contained people I didn't have a "best" shot of. With pictures, you'd just sort in to piles instead of star rating them.


If using Photoshop, the dust and scratch filter can be worth trying, perhaps as an action, to achieve some kind of clean up of scanned photos.

Good luck, Dave

[victor]

Addendum:

IF you can set up a tripod inside a Church, then consider HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging)

This fellow has some very nice work.

William,

Many thanks for linking to my CIC album. All the images were processed gently in Photomatix using a maximum of 5 exposure with a 2ev setting. When taking these images use manual focus and live view to focus.

check the exposures carefully and ensure windows/highlights are not blown.

Once you have processed in Photomatix blend the images in Photoshop using layer masks etc to ensure highlights/shadows are what you want.. Detail and not blown.

Colour can also be balanced via further adjustments.

The key is get the exposures correct in camera and process gently in Photomatix then adjust in Photoshop.

The following image is a further example from Ely Cathedral, UK.

[jcuknz]

Old photographs relate to hundreds of family pictures which I would like to preserve for my grandchildren (I am also writing about my familylife during the late '40's and '50's Chris

I too have photos, studio shots and snapshots dating from around 1900 and while I have copied most for current use I realise that with the advance[?] of technology that anything I take today is likely to be un-viewable in a couple of decades or less. [ I have a quality VHS editing machine which cost me a bomb sitting across the room as I write BUT who uses VHS these days? Not me this past decade ]
So I suggest that the question you should ask is "How do I preserve these shots" .. I am sorry but I do not have the answer but experienced a failure of colour shots taken in the 60's while B&W as as good as ever.

So I have faith that if I knew how the silver halides would outlast me ever ... I'm 84 come next month. They have stood up pretty well not being looked after for the past century in some cases.

A snap from around 1912... my mother, aunt [older] and Grandmother.


Dan #7 .. my calculations showed me that even my 5Mp camera originally used was plenty adequate for 35mm negatives and using a scanner though easier was not satisfactory.

[jcuknz]

Thinking further to #14 ... Although it only answers the question of the old photos which I assume are B&W from that period? If they are then I suggest a 35mm film camera using slow film, 100 ISO or less, and assumes that either you or a trusted source to make further prints which have been properly fixed and then washed to remove the unused silver halides properly ... but since you already have prints I think that further prints are not needed and all you really need is the negative so long as it is properly fixed and most important properly washed prior to filing away in archival bags.

I had nostalgic memories of the Pentax cameras I used and found a place selling old ones at very reasonable prices on Amazon UK. A suitable lens [ M42 or K mount depending on body you got ] should not set you back too much either.

I have B&W negatives dating from the 1930's still in good condition.

[JohnRostron]

Museums usually have bans on flash, but I doubt that they would have explicit bans on portable lights. I have a couple of LED panels, each about 2cm by 20cm, which I use to photograph fungi. These could well be used to illuminate a museum display sufficiently to take a hand-held photo. You would need someone to hold them in place for you.

However, I would guess that a suitably officious museum attendant would find some reason why you could not do this!

John

[William W]

I like John’s lateral thinking idea for Chris to consider other means of "preserving" his Family Photos, just mounting the Photographs in a good quality album could be a good idea: although there would be only one copy of them.

***

I note that the OP (Chris) is referring to Photographs (not negatives).

When scanning Photographs (not 35mm negatives) the quality and abilities of the scanner is important to consider: there is vast range of scanners and some will achieve poor results when scanning photos and even poorer results when scanning 35mm negatives. I mentioned this point earlier and it’s worth re-iterating it.

IF Chris’s Photographs are in reasonable condition and he only wants to “preserve” them into a digital medium, then a relatively inexpensive AND also efficient way of managing a large number of Photographs is for him to use an APPROPRIATE Scanner.

*

Here is an example of one of many 5”x4” Photographs, which were in OK condition but not perfect condition - but many were poorly printed. The Family wanted these images preserved to digital files and they wanted to distribute the files to others overseas and around Aus.

Also the family wanted restoration to some the more special images, but they were working on a budget and therefore it was prudent for me to use a scanning process to do more images, rather than spending their money on my time for a macro copy & inter-neg file process and do fewer images.

*

This is the original 5” x 4” Print (on the left) and the scanned file (on the right):



*

This is the scanned file after having a minimal Post Production comprising: a programmed colour correction and exposure; one stage sharpening: then save to file. The process took me about 30 seconds to scan the image less than 30 seconds to post produce it. Remember that I could do 4 x Photographs that size, in one scan.



*

The Family wanted that particular image, (Great-Grandmother and first Great-Grandchild) to be enlarged for their Photo Collection. With some Post Production it holds well to a 10 x 8 Print. It is a little bit soft around the Great Grandmother’s hair, but frankly no one in the Family even noticed that, because they were simply overjoyed at being able to display a Framed Photograph which is 4 times larger than the original which they had tucked away in a Photo Album and never saw the light of day.



WW

All rework © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996
Original image is used with the Owner’s permission

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Museums usually have bans on flash, but I doubt that they would have explicit bans on portable lights. I have a couple of LED panels, each about 2cm by 20cm, which I use to photograph fungi. These could well be used to illuminate a museum display sufficiently to take a hand-held photo. You would need someone to hold them in place for you.

However, I would guess that a suitably officious museum attendant would find some reason why you could not do this!

John

Having worked in a gallery I can say that, depending on the setting, using handheld lights would probably not be allowed. Some artifacts are kept in low light conditions to prevent light fading, so bringing your own additional light would be a no-no.

Being a church aficionado, this thread has been an interesting read.

[Manfred M]

Museums usually have bans on flash, but I doubt that they would have explicit bans on portable lights. I have a couple of LED panels, each about 2cm by 20cm, which I use to photograph fungi.

John - have you every tried to shoot something in a glass case with the proposed setup? I suspect not as getting even lighting would require appropriately large softboxes (or some form of diffusers) outside the "family of angles" that reflect light from the light sources. This means having the lights at about a 45 degree angle and outside the view of the camera. I've definitely used this technique to photograph art behind glass. I suspect 3-D subjects might introduce additional problems, especially if they are shiny and reflective.

Add to this trying to find some way of controlling the ambient light in the museum itself, reflecting off the glass cases. One needs a fairly dark setting to photograph through glass so as to not have any ambient light getting into the shot.

I'd be very surprised if what you are suggesting would work, even if the museum let you in with the setup/

[Guinness]

Light in my house is terrible, I've experimented with all sorts of portable equipment, but what works best is a florescent tube work light, like you'd use under the hood of a car.. If you have Ridgid brand cordless tools, their R8691 work light also works great, and it lasts a long time on 12v or 18v batteries.. I use a pair of them for photo-capture software for HO scale model prototypes.. The cheap florescent under hood car light I have has a plastic shield covering about 1/3 of the bulb.. I bought a roll of metal tape they sell at home centers near the duct work for furnaces, and adhered a strip there to redirect the light downwards. It worked a little too well, so I used a razor to slice off 1/8 inch along both edges. Nice even cool light..