Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is best camera settings to make an image of a document?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 14, 2005 6:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
paper copies.

I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.

THANKS,
Gene
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:48:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene" <genes@thegateway.net> writes:

> I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
> so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
> I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
> and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
> paper copies.
>
> I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
> settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
> page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.

The auto exposure is very likely to cause the white of the paper to
come out rather gray. I'd just use manual exposure and check the
histogram; when the paper gets right near the top, that's a good
enough exposure, and then I'd shoot all the pages I wanted at that
exposure. You could instead get the same effect with auto-exposure
and probably about a +2 exposure compensation.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene" <genes@thegateway.net> wrote in message
news:WmiZd.273$3c2.43178@monger.newsread.com...
> I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
> so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
> I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
> and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
> paper copies.
>
> I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
> settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
> page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.
>
> THANKS,
> Gene
>
>

Buy a cheap scanner
Related resources
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've done it before, but a scanner works better. Just shoot the document at
the proper exposure with decent lighting. You can even do it on the floor
in a well lit room, as long as the document is held flat and the lighting is
even. Then, use your software to increase the contrast so that the printing
is truly black on white.

"Gene" <genes@thegateway.net> wrote in message
news:WmiZd.273$3c2.43178@monger.newsread.com...
>I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
> so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
> I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
> and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
> paper copies.
>
> I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
> settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
> page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.
>
> THANKS,
> Gene
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:43:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:48:06 GMT, "Gene" <genes@thegateway.net> wrote:

>I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
>so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
>I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
>and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
>paper copies.
>
>I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
>settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
>page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.

To give you an idea, a fax machine scans at 200dpi, each pixel is
either fully black or fully white. 2200 x 1700 = 3.7Mpix. And a fax is
a questionable quality of document copy.

Use the highest resolution your camera supports. Storage space is so
cheap now, you'd be crazy wasting your time shooting at any lower
resolution.

Set up a jig that holds the camera over the document aimed at the
center at a 90deg angle from the surface. Allow suitable distance to
get even lighting of the document and shoot at the sharpest aperture
for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11). Store images as medium or
high quality JPEG, but keep the resolution at it's best.

Quality-wize, You will not be able to beat what a cheap flat-bed
scanner can achieve for this same task.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene wrote:
> I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
> so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
> I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
> and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
> paper copies.
>
> I have a Canon A510 (the newer A75), so I have a lot of manual
> settings to choose from. If anyone knows of a web
> page that gives such settings and advice - please post it here.
>
> THANKS,
> Gene

That is what scanners are for.

If you really want to do the job with your camera set the exposure and
WB based on the actual lighting. Using a gray card will help.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:55:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>shoot at the sharpest aperture
>for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)

Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange of
whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.
March 15, 2005 5:55:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
> <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>shoot at the sharpest aperture
>>for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)
>
>
> Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
> Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange of
> whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.


I disagree. Most lenses are much sharper at f/8, really fancy lenses
might be better at f/11. My D70 setup with a 28-200 (not fancy) goes
from f/3.5 to f/36 & I doubt f/20 looks better than f/8. I know f/8 is
way sharper than the extremes.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:08:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>secheese wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
>> <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>shoot at the sharpest aperture
>>>for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)
>>
>>
>> Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>> Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange of
>> whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.
>
>
>I disagree. Most lenses are much sharper at f/8, really fancy lenses
>might be better at f/11. My D70 setup with a 28-200 (not fancy) goes
>from f/3.5 to f/36 & I doubt f/20 looks better than f/8. I know f/8 is
>way sharper than the extremes.

It's probably some anal use of the word 'sharp' he has a problem with.

It's not sharp enough to stab anyone with...

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:56:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:26:50 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It's probably some anal use of the word 'sharp' he has a problem with.

If by anal you mean correct, then you are anal. :) 

Most things, when pushed to their extremes, will perform sub
standardly. This is certainly true of optics and photography. All
else being equal, a lens will experience focus shifts with changes in
aperture. Bottom line, a given lens performs best near it's midrange
aperture settings; this is a fact... believe it or not.

Curious... just what is your definition of 'sharp'? ;) 

Regards.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:08:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>secheese wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
>> <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>shoot at the sharpest aperture
>>>for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)
>>
>>
>> Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>> Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange of
>> whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.
>
>
>I disagree. Most lenses are much sharper at f/8, really fancy lenses
>might be better at f/11. My D70 setup with a 28-200 (not fancy) goes
>from f/3.5 to f/36 & I doubt f/20 looks better than f/8. I know f/8 is
>way sharper than the extremes.

The sharpness of a lens is how well it can focus the light rays on to
the media; be it film or CCD. The aperture has nothing to do with how
well the lens focuses.
March 16, 2005 9:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:08:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>secheese wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
>>><owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>shoot at the sharpest aperture
>>>>for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)
>>>
>>>
>>>Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>>>Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange of
>>>whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.
>>
>>
>>I disagree. Most lenses are much sharper at f/8, really fancy lenses
>>might be better at f/11. My D70 setup with a 28-200 (not fancy) goes
>
>>from f/3.5 to f/36 & I doubt f/20 looks better than f/8. I know f/8 is
>
>>way sharper than the extremes.
>
>
> The sharpness of a lens is how well it can focus the light rays on to
> the media; be it film or CCD. The aperture has nothing to do with how
> well the lens focuses.


A small opening has the effect of diffusion blurring off the edges of
the opening. I don't know why a large opening is less sharp, probably
because it's using all the glass rather than the prime central part but
it is true. Do your own test and you will see.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Walter Banks wrote:
> "White board photo" is a package that I use that is very good at
processing jpeg
> documents that have been photographed by a digital camera.
> It corrects for orientation and contrast. Orientation corrections are
both
> for rotation and view point. I have been using Whiteboardphoto with
a
> 2 Mpixel Canon S110 on 8 1/2 by 11 and producing very readable
> document images.
>
> w..
Wow, neat, I wrote Whiteboard Photo, it is great to see people are
using it.

Scott
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Owamanga
> <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >shoot at the sharpest aperture
> >for your lens (probably around f/8 or f/11)
>
> Firstly, aperture has no bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
> Secondly, a lens is at its optical "best" when used at the midrange
of
> whatever aperture settings are available for the lens.

First off aperture has a large bearing on the sharpness of a photo.


Secondly what aperture gives the best sharpness depends on the lens,
this will not always be in the midrage of the lens.

For 35mm cameras f/8 to f/11 are good setting because diffraction is
not a large issue yet, which is the only that that reduces resolution
as you stop a lens down. For cameras with smaller sensors in general
you will need to shot with the lens opened up a bit more.

Scott
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:51:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> A small opening has the effect of diffusion blurring off the edges of

> the opening. I don't know why a large opening is less sharp, probably

> because it's using all the glass rather than the prime central part
but
> it is true. Do your own test and you will see.

Using a larger opening will increase the aberrations of a lens, how
fast they increase depends on both the design of the lens and how well
it has been manufactured.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:13:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"White board photo" is a package that I use that is very good at processing jpeg
documents that have been photographed by a digital camera.
It corrects for orientation and contrast. Orientation corrections are both
for rotation and view point. I have been using Whiteboardphoto with a
2 Mpixel Canon S110 on 8 1/2 by 11 and producing very readable
document images.

w..


Gene wrote:

> I want to photograph an 8 1/2x11 paper document
> so that I can reproduce it on my photo printer. That is,
> I simply want to make a good copy of any paper document,
> and store that JPG for future use - should I need additional
> paper copies.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:49:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2005 06:39:53 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >First off aperture has a large bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>
> No it doesn't. It has a large bearing on depth of field, which isn't
> sharpness.
>
You are the only photographer I have some across that does not believe
the aperture effects the sharpness of the lens.

Check out this link, the colored lines are the MTF of the lens at f/8
the other lines are at f/1.4
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...

Scott
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 Mar 2005 06:39:53 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>First off aperture has a large bearing on the sharpness of a photo.

No it doesn't. It has a large bearing on depth of field, which isn't
sharpness.

>Secondly what aperture gives the best sharpness depends on the lens,
>this will not always be in the midrage of the lens.

But often is.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:58:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 24 Mar 2005 06:49:37 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>secheese wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2005 06:39:53 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >First off aperture has a large bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It has a large bearing on depth of field, which isn't
>> sharpness.
>>
>You are the only photographer I have some across that does not believe
>the aperture effects the sharpness of the lens.

I am not sure but it seemed to me that secheese was comparing the
effects of changing the ap. between sharpness and depth of field.
while it affects both, he seems to be pointing out a larger "bearing"
on DOF. JMHO


>
>Check out this link, the colored lines are the MTF of the lens at f/8
>the other lines are at f/1.4
>http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...
>
>Scott
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 24 Mar 2005 06:49:37 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>secheese wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2005 06:39:53 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >First off aperture has a large bearing on the sharpness of a photo.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It has a large bearing on depth of field, which isn't
>> sharpness.
>>
>You are the only photographer I have some across that does not believe
>the aperture effects the sharpness of the lens.

I'm honored! :) 
!