Notes on Using A Camera
to Copy Old PhotosThis file is a compilation of messages written in the FidoNet Genealogy Echo on the topic of restoring old photographs for a researcher's benefit. The information you will read here are various messages written from various people about how to do this. Public Domain --
NOTES ON USING A CAMERA TO COPY OLD PHOTOS
A discussion captured from the NGC
From: Janice Smith
To: All
I have many old photographs to copy and have been using a photographer. So far I have had 100 copied at considerable expense. copying them ourselves has not been satisfactory. Getting information on equipment and supplies has been difficult even through good photo supply stores. I understand we need a 1-on-1 macro lense but I need more information. I believe the expense will be considerable, but in the long run I should save money, have more control, and be able to photograph photos at people's homes. Any leads would be most appreciated.
From: Norman Reid
To: Janice Smith
I have had considerable success copying black and white photos of family members. Perhaps my experience will be helpful to you. I use a Nikon camera with a 55mm. macro lens. Other cameras also offer macro lenses. Many of the short zoom lenses, those in the range of 28-85mm. or 35-70mm. also have a macro setting. The advantage of these lenses is that they will allow you to move in close enough to make the largest possible negative. This yields the highest quality images. The advantage of the Nikon lens (and other brands, though possibly not all macro lenses) is that it is constructed to keep all corners of a flat object, like a photo, in sharp focus. I use a high resolution film to produce black and white negatives.
I have been using Kodak's Panatomic-X, which is very high resolution, but slow in speed. This is no longer made; however, Kodak's T-Max 100 film claims higher resolution and also higher speed. I will switch to this when my supply of the older film runs out (I may run out of family members before film, how-ever). The remaining keys have to do with lighting and stability in taking the photo. The goal for lighting is to avoid differences in light levels and to avoid shiny spots. The ideal way to do it is to arrange two lights of equal intensity on each side of the photo being copied, at 45 degree angles to it, each the same distance from the photo. I use floodlamps, which are inexpensive and easy to get.
You can also buy custom setups, with lamps on gooseneck arms, for this purpose. However, I admit to using more primitive methods on many occasions, when the lights are not available. When this is necessary, avoid direct sunlight, which can create reflections; photograph in shadows, or on an overcast day. Do not use a flash, or any other light, pointed directly at the photo. Place the photo where it will not move. You can purchase special mounting boards with magnetized strips on each side to hold photos in place, and flat. Probably you could make something with magnets on a metal board, or using velcro. Be sure the camera cannot move while the picture is being taken. At close distances, the focus is very critical and would be affected by the slightest movement toward or away from the photo. Also, even slight motion will show up as blurriness in the photo. Thus, a tripod should alway be used.
Finally, I generally bracket exposures. That is, make one at the setting the meter calls for; make one a half f-stop higher, and one a half-stop lower. Since the camera is on a tripod, you can use a high f-stop (high number) and a slower shutter speed. This will help avoid problems with sharpness of focus that might occur otherwise. Somewhere in the range of f8 to f16 should be ideal. When you are at a family member's house and don't have your tripod along, use a higher speed film, such as Kodak's T-Max 400 film. It has more noticeable grain, but its faster speed will let you get away with holding the camera by hand.
If you don't develop your own negatives (I do), you'll get the best quality sending them to a custom lab. If there isn't one available nearby, you can probably find a mail-order house in the back of one of the photo magazines. In a pinch, use Ilford's XP-1 film, which you can have developed by the same people who make color prints. The prints will be sepia toned, but the negatives can be reprinted later on B&W paper to give the results you want. I hope this helps. If this leaves questions, please let me know.
From: Janice Smith
To: Norman Reid
Thank you very much for such excellent input. We have a number of lenses which have given marginal results. We have seen the Nikon macro lense - WOW. We have a Cannon and want to see what we are buying as the expense is high. I want to be able to travel with the equipment as it is diffucult to ask people to lend photos. Your time and effort are much appreciated. Saw the Nikon lense only yesterday - we were very impressed. Would like to avoid the expense of buying a new camera.
From: Norman Reid
To: Janice Smith
Canon makes some very good equipment. If yours is a 35mm SLR model, I would suggest seeing what Canon has before investing in Nikon, since it would mean starting from scratch. I would like to point out that in both Nikon and Canon, it is possible to get good equipment on the used market. Most of mine has come that way. As long as you know what you want first, watch the classifieds or go to a good camera store. Since I assume you live in the Washington area, the Post classifieds are very good for this (under camera in miscellaneous). Also, Penn Camera in DC and Falls Camera in Arlington have good used equipment departments. Good luck.
From: Cindy Bryant
To: Janice Smith
I have had considerable success copying photographs with my Cannon AE-1. Basically all you need is a camera that has the lenses separate from the body. (What you see actually goes thru the lens, not the side). Plus a macro-lens, altho; if it's a LARGE picture you are copying, the the plain jane lens works. You really need a copy stand.... a scissor-type stand that you screw the camera onto, then you can adjust it up and down to get what you want. You can also get filters for different purposes, but as a rule, I try to make my copies outside on an overcast day. (if I have a choice).
Some pictures glare worse than others, so be careful in the sun. Shade seems to work better. I too, was having them done at the photo center and that gets very costly. I bought a used camera and copystand, and now have litterally hundreds of copied photos, plus the negatives, and am able to copy anything I desire (with permission of the owner, of course) and not have to be selective due to cost. Besides, some people don't like to loan out their photos. I can copy them on the spot. I usually take 2 snaps or more of each to make sure I get a good one. I am VERY satisfied with the results. I am not a camera buff and have a lot to learn, but a good camera does all the work.
From: Joyce Brown
To: Janice Smith
I have had the same expense in getting copies of old photographs although I found someone trying to get started who has done good work for me at less than a commercial studio. However, if you want to do it yourself, get the book "PHOTOGRAPHING YOUR HERITAGE" by Wilma Sadler SHULL, Ancestry Publishing P.O. Box 476, Salt Lake City, UT 84110. Published 1988. The author takes you through step by step what you need and how to take the pictures. At $7.95, the book is an excellent investment. Maybe your local bookstore or genealogy supply resource will have it. Best Regards, Joyce
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Janice Smith
I have copied a lot of old photographs out of my mothers Album. What I did was use my 35 mm camera with a 50mm lens, then I added close up rings which are very inexpensive. Of course you have to use a tripod so as not to cause movement. I then just sent the film in to be de- veloped and then was able to do whatever I wanted with the negatives. I do have the capability to develop my own since we have an enlarger. I use black and white for the old photos, although some people use color with a filter in which case they get the brown look. We do have the macro equipment and bellows as well, but the close up rings seem to do the trick.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Janice Smith
I forgot to add that I use a photographers light as well, regular bright light has a yellow cast or golden cast to it, and I find it unsatisfactory. The bulb is a 500 Watt photo bulb.
From: Brian Main
To: Janice Smith
I would suggest two things, first a trip to the library, There you can find numerous books on home built copy stands and associated equip- If you are not the handy type then try giving Calumet a call, They are my favorite photographic supply house. Their number is 1-800-225-8638. They have a great catalog with lots of information.. For the most part all you need is a copy stand and a camera. Lights are nice but if you time it right you can use the sun till you can afford color balanced lights. Another idea would be to get a copy of Shutterbug MAgazine. It has alot of used equipment calssifieds in the back where you may find what you are looking for. Hope this helps
From: Bob Way
To: Janis Smith
I saw your message about your concern for making good copies of photos. You don't really need a lot of expensive equipment to make very adequate and in enexpensive copies. I purchased several years ago a set of Close-up lenses from my local camera shop for about $24.00. They allow you to position your camera at various (close) distances from the thing you are photographing.
I have been collecting old family photos for years and copying them for preservation's sake. You may need a couple photo flood lights, angled at a 45 degrees on either side of your original photo, but that's not always necessary. I usually place the original under a piece of thin glass to keep it flat - they have a tendency to curl under the lights. I prefer to use a piece of "Den-glass" (about $9.00 for an 8x10" piece) because of it's "almost" invisibility, regardless ot the light source. There is no reflection of you or your camera with this type of glass. This is expedient, to be sure. But it's a very suitable alternative to the prices charged by professional photographers. Try it and Good Luck.
From: James Davis
To: Janice Smith
Here is what I do.
- You need to have a camera with a detachable lens.
- Go down to a camera store and get a set of extension tubes that can be installed between your lens and the camera. These cause the focal distance to be reduced so that you can take pictures at very close distances. You can try it out at the store.
- I have a tripod that I can take the center geared piece, that the camera connects to, out from the top of the center of the tripod and insert it from the bottom so that the camera is below the tripod center rather than above it.
- I use a couple florescent lamps one from each side and something to hold the picture flat if needed and then compose my picture useing the right extension tube, the heighth above the picture with the tripod and the focus to get it just right.
- I use black and white film. You have to take the advice from others on just which brand and type.
From: Paul Pennington
To: Janice Smith
I recently copied about 144 old family photographs, and the results were very good. First, you don't need a 1:1 macro lens--that would make a full-frame copy of a postage stamp! I bought a Vivitar "2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter" for my Minolta SRT-101 35-mm camera. I paid $90.35 including shipping from Adorama in NY, 1-800-223-2500. It works very well with a 35 mm lens I already had, giving a 70 mm lens result, which is comfortable for use on a copy stand.
I wouldn't recommend close-up lenses, as they don't have enough range to copy photos of different sizes. A real macro lens is very expensive. The doubler is useful with your other lenses, too: my 28- 200 zoom becomes a 54-400 mm.
I also constructed my own copy stand, after pricing them around $200. It's basically a piece of plywood and some pipe, with a small tabletop tripod mounted to the pipe to hold the camera. I use two clamp-on lamps with household floodlights in them for illumination. Buy an "18% gray card" at the photo store to set exposure with.
I may inherit the photographs from my Aunt someday anyway, but at least we now have copies in case of a fire.
From: T.R. Peterson
To: Janice Smith
Have you looked at "close up rings"? You can purchase a set of three for about $40 and they do a good job. I use those all the time.
From: Anna Herbertson
To: Janice Smith
I have a Cannon SLR, bought a reversing ring for for my normal 50mm lens, for about $10.00. Gives you macro capability. You can photograph old photos, even pick out individuals from groups. It takes good light, but results are as good as `sending them out'.
From: David Graf
To: Bruce Kahn
I was under the impression that Kodak no longer manufactured Panatomic-X. It would appear to be true if T-Max 100 is a better film. Could you please explain?
Also, how does T-Max 100 compare to some of the chromogenic films such as Ilford's XP2?
From: Bruce Kahn
To: David Graf
No need to, you are exactly correct! T-Max 100 gets better granularity (grain) with more speed due to the use of T-grains instead of conventional 3-D's.
I don't have any data on competitors products (although I am sure that somebody at Kodak does). There is a big difference between conventional and chromogenic B&W films, however. In terms of archivability, even though both films give a B&W image, chromogenic films use dyes to achieve this, whereas in conventional B&W films you are actually seeing silver particles. All dyes fade (some more than others, and react differently to heat, light, humidity, etc.). So if you are concerned with keeping your negatives forever, a chromogenic film would be a bad idea.
Let me know if you want to know about "the myth of RC paper" (archivability).
From: Norman Reid
To: Bruce Kahn
Actually, I fully agree with you. It is just that having invested in a couple of 100 foot reels of FX, I didn't want to let it go to waste. So I reserve it exclusively for copying pictures, and choose TMX for other work that doesn't require high shutter speeds.
From: Paul Delmore
To: Bruce Kahn
I have copied many old photos, from 16x20 down to small school pix about the size of a 35 mm frame. I use a Minolta X-700 with auto- exposure. Sometimes I use my regular 50mm lens with or without closeup lenses. More often, I use a 70-150 telephoto with a macro range. By itself, I can take pictures down to postcard size. For further magni- fication, I add the necessary closeup lens or lenses. I also use a focusing rail on my tripod to simplify framing.
Since exposures can be slow, I use a cable shutter release. I use T- MAX 400 and all pix come back standard 3 1/2 x 5 1/2. Occasionally, I will personally make an enlargement myself of selected photos. The quality is more than adequate for my use. However, some old originals have faded and I have not been ableto increase the contrast. I tried light blue filters but itdoes not appear to have helped much. Still, relatives arepleased with what I've got. But, I don't do it often since it takes a lot of time and preparation. I usually make 2 shots at different exposures by changing the film speed setting on my camera. I use only natural daylight coming in through a largewindown. Framing so that I get the picture and not the background seems to take the most time. The auto-exposure camera sure helps. I wonder if an auto-focus camera would be any easier to use?I suspect photcopying for someone just starting out who is notaccustomed to multiple-lens SLR cameras can be a wrenchingexperience. And, since my view-finder includes a bit more thanthe eye can see, framing can be tedious if you don't want extraneous material in your negative and print. For thosewho cannot print their own final pictures, this is important. I, occasionally, have had to shoot a picture over for this reason.
I have also copied color 8x10's with GOLD 100 to generate standard size prints for sending to relatives, etc. 35 mm negs have a 2x3 format and few commercial prints use all of the negative. Perhaps 4x6 and 8x12 are closest, so I have to take thisinto account when framing, since I know that not all I am seeing may be on the standard print. Details!!!
..I store negs in a polypropylene sleeve, in a 3-ring binder.
..Do you have any suggestions for enlarging paper? I don't use much, so cost is not a factor. I prefer a medium wgt, with a non-glossy surface.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Paul Delmore
If you are using a tripod anyway, why use 400 film? You should use the slowest film possible. You will get much better grain and resolution that way. You can get 4x6 or 3.5 x 5.5 whichever you prefer.
> However, some old originals have faded and I have not been able
> to increase the contrast. I tried light blue filters but it
Try a yellow (K-2)
> I usually make 2 shots
> at different exposures by changing the film speed setting on
The best way to "bracket" is in 3 shot increments. A center point at the meter reading, and one each plus and minus some amount. You shouldn't have to change the film speed setting. All "real" cameras have an exposure override switch. My camera will even bracket automatically at selectable increments!
> I wonder if an auto-focus camera would be any easier to use?
Not a good idea for copy work.
> framing can be tedious if you don't want extraneous material in your
> negative and print.
Then cut it off! Whats the big deal? If you are really interested in determining the exact relation between what you see and what you get (and if your viewfinder is centered) here is a simple thing to do. Take a picture of a piece a newspaper (the want ads works well). Draw a box on the newspaper with exactly the viewfinder frame as you see it. Then take the picture. When you get the film back, look at the negative with a magnifier. You might be surprised! In any event, it will give you a quantitative idea of your actual field of view that you can use later to optimize your full frame.
> 35 mm negs have a 2x3 format and few commercial prints use all of
> the negative. Perhaps 4x6 and 8x12 are closest, so I have to
What you are referring to is aspect ratio. The size of a 35mm negative is 24 x 36 mm. This corresponds to a 2:3 (height:width) aspect ratio. 4x6 is also EXACTLY 2:3. Check out this new math. Take 2:3 and multiply each number by 2. What do you get? So a 4x6 print CAN exactly reproduce a full frame 35mm negative (but won't unless you print it yourself). At least you lose the same amount all the way around.
> ..Do you have any suggestions for enlarging paper?
Come on! Do you have any suggestions on a good car to buy? Enlarging paper for what? Color? B&W? B&W prints from color negatives? Slides? I need more information.
From: Bill Barnett
To: Bruce Kahn
I have just joined this BBS and have read many messages concerning copying old photos, and specifically noticed your comment about trying light blue filters to increase contrast. I have been copying many old photos and have considerable success in greatly increasing the contrast and eliminating the faded yellow of old photos. You must use a very, very dark blue filter to offset the yellow. Use a 47B filter. Tiffen makes one, and Kodak has geletin filters, but they are hard to hold flat enough to use in front of a lens. The filter is so dark that you must focus without it. The filter factor is 24X ! I have my own darkroom and use Kodak Technical Pan B & W film, a truly amazing film. But you really must develop it yourself. Using the filter, I use a film speed of 200 and use very high contrast Kodak HC110B developer. I have prints that are far superior to the faded original, and almost seem to show details not in the original, which is not true, of course. Best book on this I've seen is Kodak's "Copying and Duplicating in Black and White and Color". It is expensive, but well worth it if you are serious about the subject. Hope this helps. Have fun in you copy work.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Bill Barnett
> I have been copying many old photos and have considerable success
> in greatly increasing the contrast and eliminating the faded yellow
> of old photos. You must use a very, very dark blue filter to offset
> the yellow. Use a 47B filter.
Offhand, I have never heard of this filter number. Is this a Wratten filter number? (Since you referred to Gels). For a blue, I use an 80B (or 80A or 80C). These are available from anyone and screw right in front of the lens. The filter factors are 2.4 (80A) to 1.9 (80C). For everyone else out there, filters will darken the complimentary color, and lighten their own color. Blue and Yellow are complimentary (photographically) colors. If you have yellow spots or stains, you might want to use a yellow filter, if you want to increase the overall contrast of a yellow print, use a blue filter.
> The filter factor is 24X !
I doubt it. That would be virtually opaque. Are you sure that you didn't drop a decimal point? 2.4 sounds much more reasonable (see above).
> I use Technical Pan B & W film, a truly amazing film.
Thank you, but what do you find so amazing about it?
> Best book on this > I've seen is Kodak's "Copying and Duplicating in
> Black and White and Color". It is expensive, but well worth it if
> you are serious about the subject. Hope this helps.
Thanks again. As I recall, this book is only $25-$30. Not really that expensive. There is also a small book by Roger L. Smith entitled "Heirloom Images - The Professional Guide to Copying and Restoring Old Photographs". This book is available ($14.95) from Heirloom Images, P.O. Box 1551, Mishawaka, IN 46544.
There is also a series of articles by the same author (taken from this book) in "Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques", which you ought to be able to find at your local library (if not, I might be suitably persuaded to send you a copy of the series)
Sept/Oct 1989: Part I: Equipment
Nov/Dec 1989: Part II: Films and Print Stains
Mar/Apr 1990: Part III: No Shutter, Processing
Jul/Aug 1990: Part IV: Printing and Finishing
Nov/Dec 1990: Part V: Color, and a Restoration Intro
Mar/Apr 1991: Part VI: Restoration Copying
I hope that this helps (everyone).
From: Bill Barnett
To: Bruce Kahn
Re: your question, [Use a 47B filter] " ... Is this a Wratten filter number?" Yes. A 47B is a very dark blue filter, and it does have a filter factor of about 25X (not 2.5X). Tiffen does sell one. It is so dark that I can see nothing thru the finder on my Nikon SLR with the filter in place. I use a Kodak 18% gray card to determine the correct exposure without the filter, then put the filter on the camera and expose for 25 times the exposure the camera meter indicated.
I had tried numerous blue filters to offset the yellowing of old photographs and could see no effect at all in my copies. Apparently the complimentary color the yellow on faded prints is a very deep blue. I've found that even slightly yellowed prints have more yellow oxidation on them than you notice, and the resulting negative is much less muddy, especially in the shadow areas, with the filter.
My remarks about increasing contrast with the filter are not really correct. Using Tech Pan film exposed and developed for high contrast corrects much of the flat contrast problem of faded pictures and the filter helps by removing the effect of the yellowing.
Tech Pan film is an amazing film. It is extremely fine grained and is extensively used for copy work. The film exposure index varies from about 20 to over 250, depending on the contrast you want and the developer used. For straight (normal contrast) copy work, the exp. index is 40 with Kodak HC110 developer, F strength. For very faded pictures, I use an index of 200 and HC110 B solution. The contrast can be varied from rather flat to almost pure B & W line drawings. Again, see the Kodak book I referenced for excellent illustrations of what can be accomplished. Re: the magazine articles you referenced in Darkroom Techniques, I have those issues, and they are excellent. Thanks for your offer to copy them for me. We may be getting more but hopefully these exchanges will encourage others to try some of these techniques. I have copied some 120 year old family photos so faded that they were barely viewable. Using the above methods, re- sulted in almost normal contrast prints. You could swear there are details in the print not visible in the original, but that is non- sense. There are professionals who do this kind of copy/restoration work, but the cost is very high. If you can make a good clear negative, getting good enlargements made is not very expensive.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Bill Barnett
> Yes. A 47B is a very dark blue filter, and it does have a
>filter factor of about 25X (not 2.5X). Tiffen does sell one.
I will have to look this up in my filter book at work. I can't imagine that anyone would sell one in a screw mount if it is as opaque as you say (and a FF of 25 certainly would be!).
> copies. Apparently the complimentary color the yellow on
> faded prints is a very deep blue. I've found that even
You are confusing two things. Color, and density. The complimentary color of the yellow that you refer to is a blue, but doesn't imply anything about density. You don't need a very dense blue to compliment any color (strictly speaking). The problem with color is that your eye sees light of many different wavelengths, and more or less integrates them all into one color, even though it really is a combination of many colors. There are many different combination of wavelengths that you can distinguish (metameric colors). The only way to really tell what is going on with filters is to examine the transmission vs. wavelength.
> not really correct. Using Tech Pan film exposed and developed for
> high contrast corrects much of the flat contrast problem of faded
> pictures and the filter helps by
Most people copying get in trouble with too much contrast, basically caused by compounding the toe part of the curve. Are you sure you meant increasing the contrast?
> We may be getting more technical than most of the people
> are interested in, but hopefully these exchanges will
> encourage others to try some of these techniques. I have
Yes, I am sure that we are for some. But better too technical, than not enough!
From: Diane Rodriguez
To: Bruce Kahn
I would like to know about the "myth of RC papers" that you speak of. My photography Prof. says that RC is not archivable. Do you have information to the contrary? Thanks, Diane/S
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Diane Rodriguez
> speak of. My photography Prof. says that RC is not
> archivable. Do you have information to the contrary?
Well, the short answer is that your photography Prof. used to be right, but not any more. Current RC papers are nearly as archival as fiber based paper.
Extensive research on problems of RC paper (unnatural fading, orange- red discolorations of the image, and a mirror-like metallic sheen in parts of the silver image, particularly in framed prints) indicated that the problem was due to the white TiO2 pigment that was added to the polyethylene resin layer on the face side of the print to make it white and reflective. Irradiation of the TiO2 resulted in the release of a strongly oxidizing agent that attacked the resin layer, and diffused up to the emulsion layer where it wreaked havoc. In unframed prints, the oxidant wasn't contained, so it was less of a problem.
Now, antioxidants are included in the paper support and resin layers giving "stabilized" RC supports. ANSI is preparing a new standard for the permanence of B&W papers (ANSI IT 9-2).
"In truth, the best scientific estimates of the comparative life expectancy of RC and fiber-base prints show little practical differences - both will last for a very long time if given reasonable storage conditions. There is no longer any technical basis for the belief that all RC prints are greatly inferior to fiber-base prints in terms of archival keeping."
Taken in part from an article by James M. Reilly, director of the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology.
This is probably more than you wanted to know, but I hope that you learned something!
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: All
I can copy my old photos, but I have one that needs to be restored. I understand it is very expensive. Am I correct in assuming that they take a picture of the old photo, then use some type of "paint" on the copy, then take a picture of the copy and develop that and presto, restoration? My question, if this is correct would be where would I be able to obtain this "paint" and what is it.
From: Brian Main
To: Gerry Cizmar
In a message to All <14 Oct 91 12:53> Gerry Cizmar wrote:
GC> I can copy my old photos, but I have one that needs to be
GC> restored. I understand it is very expensive. Am I correct in
Your Theory of photographing the original and fixing it is correct, That way the original doesn't sustain any further damage. The "Paint" you want is actually called Spotone and is made by Retouch methods Company Inc. Most photo supply stores sell it as a kit containing three different tones to match the shade of grey or black on the print you are retouching, a brush and instructions. There are several books on the subject available but the instructions that come with the kit are quite adequate for starters. The kit costs about 5 bucks at Ritz Camera but I'm sure other stores sell it too. Hope this helps.
From: Bent Buschpetersen
To: Gerry Cizmar
I have been through that one and ended up purchasing a Hand Scanner (DFI HS-300). It comes with a card that you put into one of the slots and some software, including a special version of Paintbrush. Now, after you learn to scan - it takes some practice, then you can retouch your images pixel by pixel and thus remove warts, scratches, etc. I then print the images with my HP DeskJet 500 always using a fresh cartridge for this purpose. The result has been excellent, on very old photos sometimes the result isd better than the original. You must expect to shell out 150 - 200 dollars, but you are then set for quite some time.
From: Lutz Winkler
To: Gerry Cizmar
To restore an old photograph, it is best to work on a copy. Unless you have some previous experience, better have a spare copy on hand. Restoration (if you want good results) should really be left to someone who specializes in that type of work because sometimes airbrushing is necessary. If you are going to try your hand at it, ask for "matte" prints, they are much easier to work on than glossies. Preferrably the prints should not be run through a hardening type of fixer, but I doubt that - in this day and age - you will find a lab that could provide that kind of special service. If the damage isn't too bad you can even use grey and black pencils on matte prints instead of brush.
Go to your nearest photo supply house and ask for "print" (not negative) retouching or spotting colors. You should have a choice of liquids or solid (on plastic chips). Either is OK but pay attention that color (b&w or sepia) matches the prints. I don't know if retouching pencils are still available, but they are the easiest to use.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Lutz Winkler
Thanks for the input Lutz. I will try to restore the photo myself. If I fail to do so, I will have no choice but to send it to a professional (but this is a last resort).
From: Lutz Winkler
To: Gerry Cizmar
In a message to Lutz Winkler <21 Oct 91 9:16> Gerry Cizmar wrote:
GC> it does. I just need to be sure to find the "Paint" or pencils.
If you plan on making the prints yourself, there are a couple of things that you should also take into consideration:
First, try to keep the contrast down. Usually, if no special precautions are taken, your copy negative has already increased the contrast somewhat and details (especially in the shadow areas) get lost. Then, when you copy a "normal" print (your copy), contrast will go up again and you lose more detail. That's why it is often easy tell copies from original. Ideally the first step - making the copy negative - should already be aimed at a lower-than-normal contrast, but that requires special film and processing.
Second, if you can't find pencils and must use "paint" (retouching colors) try to find some non-hardening fixer (hypo) for your prints. Hardened emulsions don't absorb liquids very well and are more difficult to work with. Have fun. Lutz
From: David Graf
To: Gerry Cizmar
What you are probably referring to is "spotting colors". They come in either liquid or dried pigment (Kodak makes a set of three in black, white and brown). They're watersoluble and you just kind of dot them around the area tobe retouched and rephotograph the copy. You'll probably need a VERY FINE brush to apply the colors though. I noticedin a previous message that you had your own enlarger. I wouldsuggest that you use a fiber based photo paper to make thecopies for retouching. RC papers do not handle the colors thatwell as they tend to smear. Depending on your steadiness and artistic ability, the results can be quite good.
Your local photo retailer should be able to provide you with more information.
From: Jim Floyd
To: Gerry Cizmar
You seem to be getting a lot of good suggestions about how to restore old photos. If you are interested in the scanner/pixel approach I would like to return a favor. If you want to have the photo scanned at 200-300 DPI. preferably in 16 shades of grey, preferably using the PCX format, then send me the file on a floppy. I will do the resto- ration return your disk with both original file and a .PCX file of the restored picture. If you want to go this route also let me know what model printer you will use to print the file. If you desire I can also return a .WPG file so that you can print it using Word Perfect which gives good results.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Gerry Cizmar
The topic that you refer to can be very complicated. Even purely copying can be complex. In terms of restoration, however, it basically depends on what is wrong and what needs to be restored. The paint that you refer to is probably used for spotting, i.e, if you have a white dot in a dark area, you can spot it out with dye. There are many ways to do this. As you mentioned, restoration is (and should be) never done on an original photo. Generally, what is done is to copy the photo on a large negative (say 4x5) and then work on the negative. There are also many tricks that you can employ with filters to improve the copy. For example, if your picture has yellowed, or has yellow spots on it, you can do a remarkable restoration job purely by copying it through a yellow filter. If you are interested, I can give you several references.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Bruce Kahn
Thank you for taking the time to answer my querry. I really appreciate all the responses I have gotten. I now know a lot more than I did before about this subject, and am willing to try most of thesuggestions to get a good restoration of my great-grandfathers pictures.I know my mother would love to see it restored. I had spoken to someonehere and was told they were quoted a price of about $200 which I amunwilling to pay, so I would much rather do it myself.
From: Mike Fisher
To: Gerry Cizmar
One small practical suggestion for copying old photos, which I use myself.
Buy yourself a piece of good quality plate glass, 6mm (or quarter- inch) thickness and a little bigger than 8"x11" "letter-size". Askthe glass supplier to sand off the sharp edges so you can handle itsafely.
You can use it to place over the old photograph (or any document) you are copying to hold it in position. The glass needs to be thick enough for the document completely flat. You then photograph through the glass of course.
Even if the glass isn't a perfect "optical flat" (which means VERY FLAT INDEED) and is simply good commercial quality, I have found that it produces a big improvement when copying originals which are curly- simpler and better than thumb-tacks, drafting tape, etc. - nodamage at all to the original.
If you look after it and wash it with household detergent and waternow and again (just like the dishes!) you will find it to be be auseful permanent addition to your battery of photo-genealogical tools.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Mike Fisher
I presently use glass to hold down my photos to copy. I found without the glass, and with the bright light, they have a tendency to curl thus causing parts to become unfocused. I never use thumtacks or anything else for that matter that could even slightly damage my original photo. One suggestion I do have to contribute is to be sure to label your photos in your album, or tape the names of the people to the back of it. NOTE: DO NOT USE REGULAR TAPE. I use ACID FREE PHOTO HINGES. I also mount my pictures on ACID FREE PAPER, which I then insert into POLYPROPELINE FILE POCKETS. These are then put into the Album. Thanks for bringing up the glass suggestion though.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Mike Fisher
> Buy yourself a piece of good quality plate glass ...
There is a better way. Stop by your friendly neighborhood camera store and buy a copy frame. It is a piece of glass hinged to a foam baseboard. Photographers use them to copy photographs, as well as to make contact prints.
From: Mike Fisher
To: Bruce Kahn
BK> MF> Buy yourself a piece of good quality plate glass ...
BK> There is a better way. Stop by your friendly
BK> neighborhood camera store and buy a copy frame.
I tried to do that when I bought a copy stand - but none in stock. So I bought a piece of plate glass from a glazier on the way home and haven't bothered about getting a "proper" frame! :-)
As I have believe you are in the photographic business, could you recommend:
a) 35 mm B&W film for copying old monochrome photos; and
b) 35 mm colour film for copying old colour photos and what filter to use with it in view of the illumination being from four 100 watt domestic tungsten lamps?
35 mm stock in each case please - and I don't mind whether the stuff comes in yellow boxes with red lettering or some other kind, as long as the results are good! I use an elderly Olympus OM1 body with the Zuiko 50 mm macro lens and a right-angle finder. I measure the exposure requirement with an oldish Weston Master V meter using its incident light attachment and laying the whole thing face down on my sheet of glass over the original - the method seems to work very well as far as being relatively easy to get good focus, no movement and accurate exposure is concerned.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
I did not see your original message or what other person replied, so I don't know about the "paint" you are talking about -- but I would like to suggest you just take a photograph or have a professional take a photograph of the picture you are trying to restore. I can't recall which, but if you use either a MACRO or a MICRO lense it will enlarge to fill an entire frame of film and then you can make a copy from this new negative. We made a stand using a tripod so camera is very steady and raised/lowered until photo is in entire frame of camera. I have used 35mm camera as well as 110 and 126 and had just as good luck with more expensive cameras as cheaper ones. Use a light where no reflections (shiny from photo or dark shadows) are on photograph. Try different times and camera settings so you will get at least ONE good shot. Good luck -- By the way -- professionals will charge you anywhere from $3 UUS money up to $20 to make one negative. Tip: if your photo appears to be cracking you can rehydrate with regular water by taking a slightly damp rag and putting back of picture on rag (damp -- not wet) and put a book or something flat which won't affect photo front or stick to it on top of it for a minute or two -- the small amount of moisture usually will rehydrate it and many of the cracks "disappear" -- dry by hanging up on a clotheshanger. Many pictures I have done this to have looked almost new after this treatment. And the negatives were spectacular! And you wouldn't believe how good the new photographs were -- spent over $100 on having professionals make negatives and new photos for me and for a few dollars I did a better job by using bove methods. Good luck.
From: Bob Read
To: Mike Fisher
Just a thought on the matter. I did some copying years back, doing my own developing etc. I found a process that will remove many of the cracks fron old photographs, however, it ruins some of the originals so should only be attempted AFTER you have at least one acceptable negative. Lightly coat the original with a fine oil. (Vegetable oil works well.) Squeegee the original down on the glass plate and photograph using the best method at your disposal, either Bellows extentions, Macro lenses Close-up adaptors etc. The oil fills the gaps in the original finish and you wind up with a better negative to work with. Usually a mild detergent will remove the oil and the print can then be washed as though it were just developed.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
You mentioned the hand-scanner and PC Paintbrush -- BEWARE when working with photographs that are old -- sometimes the picture is scratched or "comes off" when using the scanners -- if you really must use scanner get one of those holders (it is a plastic which the scanner sits on and slides down and keeps scanner from actually touching books and pictures which the plastic sits over. Looks like a plastic picture frame scanner "slides" along.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
If you do a lot of photographs (making prints, etc) think about investing in a film rolling device -- they are so sophisticated now they can be done while in light -- you put roll of 25, 50, 75 or 100 feet of film in canister and then make your rolls in light since film stays in dark. Aftr rolling your own film you will find you can make size of canister with as few as 4 pictures or as many as 25 or 50 depending on canister going in. Processing film easy too but companies will use these home-made film rolls and you just ask for canister back (can be used 3 times). Much much cheaper than buying over-the counter film.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
See if you can read my previous messages this day to others. I'll answer questions if you need help or can't get something done -- I've restored thousands and love working with old photos. Especially when I make my own negatives since older relatives do not want to "trust" anyone with their phots -- so you just take camera, light, tripod and film and photograph pictures right in their home and they tell you who they are (before they die and no one knows who this photograph is of). Good luck. BTW I have made photographs and asked older people in the community who they were when unknown and it is amazing how involved these older persons get -- get to telling greatest stories too while identifying the persons. So remember to take a tape recorder too.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
Because you mention your photo is still in the glass and possibly "stuck" you may wish to talk to a photo specialist. We personally do the following when we find this happening. You could use one or a combination of these.
1- use a polalrizer filter along with the micro/macro lens. The polarizing filter you have to rotate until all glare from the glass is completely gone. (Not only is this great for photographing old pictures still in the glass frames, but is indispensible when it comes to vacationing and museum visitations--where other persons cannot photograph through the glass windows found in many exhibits, museums, etc., a person who owns and uses a polarizing filter can not only get (message messed up -- will begin this sentance again). Where other persons cannot get photographs through the glass, a person with a polarizing filter on their camera cannot only get great pictures through the glass, but they also can use flash and avoid the white-out caused by the flash reflecting off the glass, plus the other persons' images in the room which is being reflected on the glass is also eliminated. I usually suggest putting the camera directly against the glass when photographing, but you can get excellent photos away from the glass. Some museums, etc. do not allow for flash (and most flash attachments do not go past 5feet, anyway, when you are not allowed to use a flash, use the asa400 film or the asa1000 and the light present you will get great photographs with the polarizing filter. BTW the filter is not very expensive and can be found in most photo shops with adapters for almost every camera make and model there is. the adapter must be bought separate.
2- take a luke-warm CLEAn RAG OR washcloth and wring it out well (you can make this luke-warm with luke-warm water or use of an iron or a clothes dryer or in the oven) and while warm place this on the glass itself. This often loosens the picture without damaging it or the colors.
3- take luke-warm water and immerse photo in glass and all and let soak for a few minutes. Most all phots actually remove themselves intact when this process is uses. Once it "floats" lift very carefully and lay on a clean towel or lint-free rag and allow to dry. Since plain water is what is used in rinsing photographs, both old and new, this last usually works, but many persons are afraid to do this - - we have retrieved hundreds this way, including ones which have stuck to those plastic "glass" picture frames and picture cubes which were popular many years ago as well as old photos stuck to the glass and many which were covered in soot and went through a fire and needed to be cleaned up. Some of our phots go as far back as 1864. Hope this gives you some ideas. Good luck.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
When I mentioned rolling your own film I was indeed talking about the kind you mention you already have. BTW you can get black and white, color, and color slide films all in 50 and 100 ft rolls. Just remember to keep your color film in refrigerator when not in use and same with the rolled films (on trips keep in closed container in the ice chest). I believe the shops in Houston and Ft Worth/Dallas carry all the supplies you need. Reason I use black and white is because most of the older photos are black and white. Of course if you ever find some old marriage, birth certificates and/or marriage licenses you may be amazed at the colors in these, especially the ones which came from the German churches here in America -- just gorgeous colors on these documents. We made both black and white and color photos of these. Again we have some of these colored documents dating back before 1860.
From: Judith Murphy
To: Gerry Cizmar
You mentioned using the "paint" or using the "pencil" for restoration of old photos -- I came in the middle of the conversation between you and another person about this "paint" -- I am not familiar with either of these two methods -- could you tell me what you do with this "paint" and how you restore photos using this, and name of "paint" or "pencil" you plan on using? I never heard of this before.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Judith Murphy
> The polarizing filter you have to rotate until all glare from
> the glass is completely gone. (Not only is this great for
A polarizer won't necessarily eliminate all of the glare. It depends on the angle and type of lighting.
> get great pictures through the glass, but they also can use
> flash and avoid the white-out caused by the flash reflecting
> off the glass, plus the other persons' images in the room
> which is being reflected on the glass is also eliminated. I
This is difficult to do well. The best way is to polarize the flash, as well.
> (and most flash attachments do not go past 5feet, anyway,
Nope! Try 10-15 ft.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Judith Murphy
Thanks for all the suggestions. This most certainly gives me many ideas (I don't believe I can talk my mother into letting me get the picture out of the frame though), so that is why I took a picture of it. The problem now is to get rid of the "wrinkles" that come when a photo has been hanging and damp has seeped in. I know it has had these "wrinkles" for many, many years. This picture is not properly cared for, but I cannot ask my mother to part with the only thing she has of her grandfathers. I will see what I can do given my constraints.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Judith Murphy
I am absolutely jealous. I never found any pretty colored certifi- cates. My husbands line started in 1833 in Texas and I was lucky to find a marriage certificate (though barely legible) and not only that, the names were even spelled 3 different ways on this certificate. Ugh! what a mess.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Judith Murphy
This "paint" or "pencil" is used to touch up or retore a photo. What you do, is take a picture of the old photo, enlarge it, then use the "paint" or "pencil" to fill in where the bad spots are. You then take another picture of this "restored " picture, develop the negative and make your good print. This then, in essence is what the discussion was about. I don't know the name of this yet, but I do know it is available in the photo stores.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Gerry Cizmar
> Judith, I have the camera equipment and have taken a negative
> of my picture.
I hope that you have a big negative. The bigger the better. (> 35 mm). If your negative is big enough (4x5 or so) you can retouch right on the negative and save another generation of print-copy-print.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Gerry Cizmar
> I used to roll about 26 rolls from a 50 ft. roll of film.
> This was a long time ago and I only used color slide film. I
> suppose black and white works the same way? I do have a
Of course it does. 26 rolls of B&W film is just as long as 26 rolls of slide film. A frame is the same length, and 36 of them are the same length, no matter what kind of film.
From: Bruce Kahn
To: Gerry Cizmar
Hi Gerry, your friendly "neighborhood" photographic consultant again.
> While on the subject of restoring old photos. I went to the
> Camera shop and bought the "paint" It is called spotone and
I think the correct term is "spotting colors".
> tried it on a glossy print and it did not fully do the job.
This works best on non glossy prints. Some kind of texture holds the ink better.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Bruce Kahn
The pencil did not work too well, but the liquid worked beautifully on both glossy and non-glossy. There is a trick though, and that is to be careful that you do not spot the color on if you are covering a larger area, or you will have light and dark spots. The color does darken quite a bit when dry, so one needs to go easy on it. I finished the photograph, so this morning I took the picture again to get my negative. I will take it in to be developed probably next week and see what I get. (I don't like to develop my own negatives if I can avoid it). I think the pencils is good for small touch up jobs, and by that I mean touch-up. If you want to restore, you need the liquid (which you can also dilute in water). I guess when I said Spotone I used the brand name instead of using the correct term. Thanks for the correction, and also pointing out the difference on glossy and non-glossy photos.
From: Eleanor Bardes
To: Gerry Cizmar
JM> 3- take luke-warm water and immerse photo in glass and all and
JM> let soak for a few minutes. Most all phots actually remove
JM> themselves intact when this process is uses. Once it "floats"
JM> lift very carefully and lay on a clean towel or lint-free rag
JM> and allow to dry. Since plain water is what is used in rinsing
JM> photographs, both old and new, this last usually works, but many
JM> persons are afraid to do this.
This suggestion that Judith Murphy gave you is a good one. My brother who is news photographer used this method on an old photo stuck to glass. The glass was also cracked. In his case the photo did not peel away but he took the photo anyways while it was still under water. What it did was help decrease the amount of crack showing in the picture.
From: Gerry Cizmar
To: Eleanor Bardes
While on the subject of restoring old photos. I went to the Camera shop and bought the "paint" It is called spotone and it cost $ 7.99 for 3 small bottles (each one is a different color). Then I also bought a set of two brushes. The pencil is called " Spotout-Photo retouching and correcting pencil at $ 3.99. The pencil is supposed to be easier to use, but tried it on a glossy print and it did not fully do the job. Will try the liquid next.
From: Barry Taylor
To: Gerry Cizmar
GC> The pencil is supposed to be easier to use, but tried it on
GC> a glossy print and it did not fully do the job. Will try the
GC> liquid next.
Pardon me for jumping in, Gerry. Using Spotone or pencils is a lot easier if you get your prints done on MATT paper. The glossy is particularly hard to work with. Most papers nowadays are coated with a thin resin, which doesn't co-operate at all when you try to seep some Spotone (which is really just a dye) into the emulsion.
For ugly black marks you can also buy Spot Off, the opposite of Spotone. It's a bleach which you use to take out the black marks. You end up with a white mark where the black used to be. Then you use Spotone to darken the white so it blends into the background. Spotoff is tricky to use so follow instructions very carefully.
Make sure you practise on junk photos before you try the real thing! I also recommend a good retouching brush, but make sure you use separate brushes for Spotone and Spotoff.
From: David Graf
To: Gerry Cizmar
The problem you are experiencing with the retouching pencil is probably due to your having a glossy finish on the photo. I would suspect that the liquid did a worse job.
If I remember correctly, I think you have your own darkroom so you can make your own prints. I would suggest using a paper that is NOT RESIN- COATED (RC) and use a non-hardening fixer. Air-dry your prints (about 12-24 hours) and it should work better. You might want to try a double weight paper to help reduce the curl. Kodak used to make a long cardboard/paper roll that you could put your pictures in and dry them that way. I don't know if they still do. It's been years since I have done any serious black & white photography. Your local camera store should be able to provide additional help or perhaps Mr. Kahn can advise you on the availability of these products.
The Preservation Place
Preserve Photos
Preserve Newspaper Clippings
Preserve DocumentsThe Genealogy Forum - Main Page
Beginners' Center | Internet Center | Message Boards
Surname Center | Reunion Center | File Library
Genealogy Forum News
Shop With Us
Genealogy Forum.com is a production of
Golden Gate Services, Inc. of Armada, Michigan.
© 1998 - 2004 All Rights Reserved. Brenda Jean Bova, President.
The Genealogy Forum is a member of the Federation of Genealogical Societies and the National Genealogical Society.
Tree logo provided by MeadPond Designs and is the trademark of GenealogyForum.com.© 2004 Some graphics By Carol, All Rights Reserved
If you have any questions or comments,
please contact GenealogyForum@aol.com
