Using a copy stand and trouble with reflections...

[kdryan]

Ok, so here's the situation. Before I begin, let me say the photos in question were taken in 1958 and the photographer in question has long since died, so copyright is probably NOT an issue here.

I am copying the pictures from my wife's parents wedding (who have also since died) and am running into issues with reflections from the photos which were textured to (suprise!) prevent them from being duplicated.

My rig is:

Nikon D90 with an 18-105mm lens
Eikonix Copy Stand
4 Lowel Tota lights - 2@750w, 2@500w
2 polarized gels

Here is a picture:



I've tried using various focal lengths and different angles for the lights, but so far, the best I can do on pictures with lighter backgrounds end up with this:

 

[tirediron]

What do you mean by 'textured to prevent duplication'? Good quality images from this era were often printed on heavy stock with a surface finish similar to that of today's 'luster' but that had nothing to do with duplication; is this what you mean, or is it something else altogether? As to your example, I can't really see what you mean. Is it the white dots, or something else?

With respect to copyright, I believe that in most western countries, copyright is held by the originator for ~70-75 years after his/her death.

 

[kdryan]

Well, it's textured, how's that.

 

[vintagesnaps]

It's not by chance dust is it? Doesn't really look like dust spots but I find that I have to dust every time I scan anything. Have you tried scanning just to see if there's any reflection from the textured photo? I've scanned in my own prints but those are glossy; and have taken digital photos of some of my lumen prints (which use expired photo paper) but haven't gotten any sort of glare. Maybe more diffused lighting would help?

Even if the original photographer's next of kin holds the copyright, in the 1950s would a photographer have even given a couple a print release when they got their wedding pictures?? I'd be surprised if such a thing even existed because the photos were provided to the couple for their personal use, and other family members would have ordered prints from the proofs. There was no internet much less social media for it to be a concern that customers would take photos and edit them or use them in an unauthorized way.

I would think this is comparable to scanning if you're just making copies for you and your family's personal use or to do restoration.

 

[Theo2]

What do you mean by 'textured to prevent duplication'? Good quality images from this era were often printed on heavy stock with a surface finish similar to that of today's 'luster' but that had nothing to do with duplication; is this what you mean, or is it something else altogether? As to your example, I can't really see what you mean. Is it the white dots, or something else?

With respect to copyright, I believe that in most western countries, copyright is held by the originator for ~70-75 years after his/her death.

Yup, generally 70 years. Sounds like it's not out of copyright if it was taken in the 50s.

 

[KmH]

In 1958 the 1909 copyright act applied.

Copyright Act of 1909 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under the 1909 Act, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed. Thus, state copyright law governed protection for unpublished works, but published works, whether containing a notice of copyright or not, were governed exclusively by federal law. If no notice of copyright was affixed to a work and the work was "published" in a legal sense, the 1909 Act provided no copyright protection and the work became part of the public domain.

Back then copyright only applied for 28 years after first publication, but could be extended for a further 28 years.

It allowed for works to be copyrighted for a period of 28 years from the date of publication. Like the Copyright Act of 1790 before it, the copyrighted work could be renewed once for a second term of equal value.

The US Copyright Act of 1976 made significant changes to copyright law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

 

[kdryan]

Get off of it, folks. I'm not selling Ansel Adams fakes on Ebay here. I am trying to preserve images of my wife's dead parents since they will never be able to be reproduced even if I could find whoever holds the negatives.

Here is a scan of one of the images. It also shows you the texture...

 

[tirediron]

In 1958 the 1909 copyright act applied.

Copyright Act of 1909 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under the 1909 Act, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed. Thus, state copyright law governed protection for unpublished works, but published works, whether containing a notice of copyright or not, were governed exclusively by federal law. If no notice of copyright was affixed to a work and the work was "published" in a legal sense, the 1909 Act provided no copyright protection and the work became part of the public domain.

Cool - learn something new every day. Thanks Keith!

 

[Derrel]

The barn doors on the Tota's are casting hard shadows, and you have them aimed upward...you can see on the wall the utter mess that those four lights are creating, right?

Try TWO lights, not four. And aim them downward, not upward. You are creating a total mess by using four separate light sources. I have used Lowell's Tota lights before, and HATED them. They are the closest thing to a pinpoint light source ever created during their time. They are AWFUL things unles you have a need for blinding, hot, bright light that will be diffused, and goes all over hell.

You need to diffuse the lights, and remove two of them!!! Two x 750 and two x 500 is wayyyyyyy more light than required. In addition to the polarizing sheets, consider some serious diffusion material, to cut the specularity down. What Tota's give you is a loooooong, wide-profile, intensely specular light source! With four of them, you are just totally,totally asking for problems. Of the thousands and thousands of bumps on the lustre or pearl surface photo paper, you are GOING to get bright, pin-point specular highlights" ie, the white dots, because the lights themselves are very specular when used without heavy diffusion material in front of them.

 

[tirediron]

Okay, now that we've gotten our copyright lesson for today out of the way (BTW - do we know if the OP is from the US?), looking at your set-up, I would start by adding diffusion. even something as simple as white nylon fabric if you have nothing else to reduce the glare on the texture, and as well experiment with the angle of your lights, that may help a lot.

 

[kdryan]

I wondered if a soft box might help.

Edit: Yes, I am from the US...

 

[tirediron]

Out of curiosity, why not scan these? That would make life a lot simpler...

 

[kdryan]

Out of curiosity, why not scan these? That would make life a lot simpler...

Go up about five posts, click on the picture, then click again, then one more time....

 

[vintagesnaps]

I can see what you mean, that is noticeable. Seems like some older photos I've seen that were matte finish had a more pronounced texture than more recently made photo papers. I don't know what else to suggest other than to try to diffuse the light, seems like the textured finish is raised enough to cause reflection off the surface.

There is a site called Film Rescue International that restores old photos, but I don't know offhand if they have any resources or suggestions on their site.

 

[tirediron]

Out of curiosity, why not scan these? That would make life a lot simpler...

Go up about five posts, click on the picture, then click again, then one more time....

Whoops... missed that! :er: That's an oddball; I've never seen anything like that before. It certainly doesn't look like a standard paper texture at all. Is there any chance that these are NOT the original prints? Could they have been either copied or re-printed later on? It looks almost like half-toning. Can you actually feel this with your finger? Looking at this, lighting wise, I think you should try lighting directly from above with a very diffused light source, or cross-lighting in which case you'll need to make sure that your light angles are exactly equal and again, well diffused.