How to digitize a Dag?

[botticelli1972]

Hello all. I have come to a point where it would be beneficial to make digital files of my Daguerreotypes. I have tried to photograph them using a darkened room, lighting along the final polish direction and using black cardboard covering the camera. Even with all this I still can see the reflection of the lens in the final digital photograph unless I take the image at an angle which distorts the image too much for my liking. Am I being too picky? Do most of you scan or photograph your plates? I have never tried a scanner and did not want to invest in one if it would just produce the same reflections on the plate. Any tips would be appreciated.

Larry Shutts

[CasedImage]

Hi Larry, I use a flat bed scanner and it seems to do fine, dust on the top and underside of the glass can be a problem so its easier if you do have your own scanner and maintain it. Otherwise a service bureau’s like Kinko’s have scanners you can use. Obviously for scanning you need the plate in a plate package – cover glass and spacer etc. I have heard of a scanning software called "ice" which scans at slightly different angles and then the program removes from the file the bits of dust etc not in the image plane itself i.e. on the coverglass or scanners cover glass.
The Daguerrian Society uses a thing called a copy cube, which is a box with controlled lighting, specifically made for digitizing daguereotypes, I’ve not seen a camera reflection in there images of dags. They sell them but also rent the copy cubes out I think.

www.CasedImage.com

[Andy Stockton]

I tried scanning an antique daguerreotype that I have and the image was out of focus. I assumed this was because of the distance between the actual image and the platen of the scanner (due to the cover glass, etc.) I was using a Canon Pixma multifunction rather than a higher end scanner. I suppose this is a limitation of the scanner.

For those of you having sucessfully scanned daguerreotypes, what device are you using?

[Jon Lewis]

I haven’t tried photographing a daguerreotype but there is a diagram for doing so in Barger & White’s The Daguerreotype: Nineteenth-Century Technology and Modern Science. I don’t have the book in front of me but from what I remember the diagram is similar to what you’re doing so I’m not sure it’ll help.

For my tiny collection of vintage dags I used a scanner to digitize them. At first I used an Epson 3200 but it had problems with the bevels of the brass mats causing funny reflections. This was fixed to an extent by rotating the dag on the bed of the scanner. Now I use an Epson 4990 and scan it in absurdly large (100% @ 4800ppi) and then reduce them for whatever I need. The scans are generally pretty good without any reflection and the depth of field seems to be good enough to scan through the package without losing focus. I do have a hard time getting the color what I think it should be because the dags color seems to differ depending on how you’re looking at it or maybe it’s just me. Dust is always a problem with anything I scan, perhaps I’ll try that ‘ice’ software. My scans are available here:

http://flickr.com/photos/jonlewisphotography/sets/72157604346427270/

I’ve uploaded large versions so if you click the ‘All Sizes’ icon above an image in the image’s page you can really see what sort of resolution and quality is there. Hope that helps!

[CasedImage]

My scanner was a Epson Perfection 1660 Photo scanner. I did once use a cheaper scanner and indeed it didn’t focus on the image at all. Caveat emptor!

www.CasedImage.com

[jdanforth]

Another vote for Epson scanners. I have an older scanner and it seems to be OK. Most scanners have a manual focus provision in them.

By the way, ICE is actually a quickie scan made with an infrared light that illuminates dust. The computer then calculates and removes the dust particles. Pretty cool.

[70’s Dager]

Hello all,
I have the Epson 2450 Photo scanner and have used it for almost any type of photographic image and have had very good results. I do want to purchase the newer model to scan my 8X10 negatives, but for now I need to wait untill I have the funds to expand my use of the computer.
Walter Johnson

[Andy Stockton]

It sounds like people are pretty much in agreement that scanning is the way to go for making a digital image of a daguerreotype. Do people agree with that or are there any arguments for making an appropriate setup to capture camera based images? I would have thought the rather flat lighting of a scanner would not have captured the full tonal range, especially the deep blacks. Does anyone have some comparison shots (scanner vs. camera)?

The fact that you can only fully appreciate a daguerreotype in person is simultaneously an asset and a handicap. I am very attracted to that "non-reproducible" quality, but the reality is that short of getting wall space somewhere, most people are going to first see my work on a website or in some other digital representation. What is the very best way of presenting daguerreotypes digitally?

I have seen one or two videos, but they were rather informally done. Is that a possibility?

[jdanforth]

Andy_Stockton wrote:<snip>
The fact that you can only fully appreciate a daguerreotype in person is simultaneously an asset and a handicap.
<snip>
I have seen one or two videos, but they were rather informally done. Is that a possibility?

You raise some interesting points. I have made a few videos in order to show other people what a daguerreotype is like when viewed in person. Very few people are aware of the mirror quality of dags and it has been useful to show them how the dag will look in person.

Every time I show in a gallery I spend a great deal of time working with the people running it to light the dags correctly. In less than ideal circumstances I’ve even had stacks of 8×10 black mat board available for people to use as reflectors. That worked great!

A video would be an interesting way to show the dag in the case. I browse online for sculpture quite a bit and I find it frustrating that the sculptures are only shown from one angle. Sculpture, like dags, is better experienced than simply shown. I think that a video setup with the dag on a turntable would be nice. You could freeze-frame the video when the lighting is ideal for the image and then resume it after a few seconds. Fancy!

J

[predator]

Dear all,

I also faced the problem to digitalize a dag. Take a look what I have done, I think the result is quite impressive!

http://predator.homedns.org/dag/scan-dag.html

[greg7mdp]

Wow, that’s quite interesting and indeed a fantastic result. Thanks for sharing! Now someone just has to rig a system with motors to move the dag at defined intervals, and set the camera on a time-lapse setting, so that it can be done without user assistance.

[Andy Stockton]

What a great approach.

[newone2010]

Hi all?

I never have myown scaner.I am planing to buy a second0hand one.How about epson V500?It can be used for 8X10 dags?

I read about the “ice”. Is it only can be used for normal film?or still can be used for dags?

Looking forward for your reply,

Li

[Marizu]

My understanding of ICE is that it works by shining IR light through a negative.

It won’t work for a dag.

This doesn’t work for B&W film, either, as it is not transparent to IR. It only works on colour negs.

Any automated tools that I have seen seem to get rid of fine detail. I don’t even use ICE on color neg.

I use Photoshop and the ‘back to the future’ history brush technique to remove dust from film and wet plates.

There is a tutorial for it on eddietapp.com

http://www.eddietapp.com/PDFs/BTF%20scan7.pdf

Because his tutorial is for a slide, I think that the blend mode of lighten will be suitable for a dag.

This is time consuming but I think that it gives the best possible results. It is a lot quicker using a pen than a mouse.

I found a really good youtube video on this but I can’t get on to youtube at the moment.

[newone2010]

Thank you Mariza,

I know it now.I just need to find Epson V500 or 4490.They are much cheaper than 4990 and V700.

best,

Li

[70’s Dager]

Hello, I’ve owned both the Epson scanners, and I feel that the 4990 is well worth the difference in cost. There is a far better control system with the 4990 unit, and easier to use.

You can see my results on my web-page; http://www.walterisphotography.com.

Walter Johnson

[newone2010]

Thank you Walter.I have bought 4990 few weeks ago.I use it for my dag scaning.It works fine.It needs adjustments.I can not do it well.

[Author]

Posts