Camera or scanner to import data?

regreg
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
My wife's aunt just gave us a 3 ring binder full of geneology data and pictures for her side of the family. There is no way I want to type all the data in and I find that scanning with the OCR still makes mistakes. So I intend to just make images of the pages she has already done. She has done a lot of work on this so we will be making it into a book for her.



So my question is, has anyone photo'ed their data - imported into iPhoto - then taken it over to photoshop to adjust, correct and layout?



The time saving using the camera versus the scanner is a lot.

Setup is easy with tripod.

Or am I just barking up the wrong tree and wasting time on something that will turn out better using the scanner?



reg

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    No but ...



    A coworker of mine has started snapping photos of all his important documents so he can have them on his tablet. It works out for him but he set it up to have just enough resolution to be useable.



    I think a scanner is more what you want. Plus why bother with iPhoto and not go directly to photoshop?
  • Reply 2 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    No but ...



    A coworker of mine has started snapping photos of all his important documents so he can have them on his tablet. It works out for him but he set it up to have just enough resolution to be useable.



    I think a scanner is more what you want. Plus why bother with iPhoto and not go directly to photoshop?




    Right, personally I'd skip the iPhoto step and just dump the pics into a folder then use Photoshop's "File:Browse..." menu item. This way you can see what you need to without needing to do all that library/roll malarky...which I don't mind for casual picture taking, but not for specialty projects such as this, where they are more on the side of "graphics" than actual "photos".



    But the other factor is how good a camera are you going to use and is that resolution going to be sufficient. Try a few and see. Keep in mind it might look fabulous on screen but look like a Greco-Roman tile floor when it exits the printer.



    Depends on your/her needs for quality down the line. Definitely don't want to have to redo it later (for me, redoing something is one of the most arduous things in life).
  • Reply 3 of 16
    I started scanning old documents myself recently and found Acrobat 6's Paper Capture to do a good job, it allows you to keep the page image scanned in but can create another layer that allows for searchable text.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    regreg Posts: 832member
    The camera I will be using is a Canon 10D. I have not tried Adobe paper capture. The OCR that I use is the one that came with our Hp scanner and I don't like it very much. I am going to scan individual pictures but there are 272 pages of writing and type. No mattter what I do, it is going to take a long time to organize. Which is another reason to lean to the camera. Each picture will have a different # coming from the camera. With the scanner I will need to manually put in a name and # to keep it organized as I make scans. Oh the things we do for family!



    reg
  • Reply 5 of 16
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    That's a lot of pages but I don't see the camera solving a lot of your issues.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    regreg Posts: 832member
    Well I started because TIME was/is my biggest problem. I tried doing 5 pages from the camera and 5 from the scanner. The camera was good but the scanner was better, and it allowed me to preview prior to doing the scan. Hope to have everything done by Sept. This really gives me a greater appreciation for those that do this for a living.



    reg
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Some scanners have feeder trays, like copiers, which make scanning a bunch of stuff easier. But some copier places can make digital copies for you, so why not do that? I don't imagine the cost is especially high.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    augustwestaugustwest Posts: 157member
    My initial instinct was to say use a scanner.



    But if time is a factor, you might be able to place a number of pages at a time in front of your camera, take pictures, and then use photoshop to separate the images into separate pages. This might save you some time on the input side, but will of course add more time on the photo editing side.



    I'd be interested in how it turns out.



    If you do use a scanner, MAKE SURE to use a flat bed scanner. Wouldn't want important documents to be eaten alive...
  • Reply 9 of 16
    regreg Posts: 832member
    As much as speed is something that I want to maximize, quality is also a must. I am half way into scanning everything. I figure another 5 hours of scanning. Once everything is scanned both my wife and I can edit and come up with a good layout. We already have the good paper and will be using a color laser printer to print everything out. At that point we will take it to get binded.



    reg
  • Reply 10 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by reg

    As much as speed is something that I want to maximize, quality is also a must. I am half way into scanning everything. I figure another 5 hours of scanning. Once everything is scanned both my wife and I can edit and come up with a good layout. We already have the good paper and will be using a color laser printer to print everything out. At that point we will take it to get binded.



    reg




    What lens do you use for this duty.

    I will use personally my canon 50 mm 2,5 macro, for his total lack of barrel or pincushion distorsion.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    regreg Posts: 832member
    Right now I only have 2 lens 28-135 and a 17-40 wide angle. I used the 28-135 and it did give a good picture but the scanner was better. My next lens will be a 70 - 200 f/2.8 L. I am waiting till October to get it as a birthday present. One lens a year for a hobby.



    reg
  • Reply 12 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by reg

    Right now I only have 2 lens 28-135 and a 17-40 wide angle. I used the 28-135 and it did give a good picture but the scanner was better. My next lens will be a 70 - 200 f/2.8 L. I am waiting till October to get it as a birthday present. One lens a year for a hobby.



    reg




    I suggest you to took the IS model : some more bucks, but a killer for handheld shots. Definitively a must for indoor sport photography.



    One lens a year is a good thing. I have invested many bucks this year (but I use it for my work)



    Canon 10 D

    Canon Speedlite 550 EX

    Canon 24-70 2,8 L

    Sigma 100-300 EX

    Sigma 15-30 EX (I should have taken the 17-40 from Canon, I don't need really 15, and the Sigma stopped down to F5/6 or smaller, has the same image quality than the Canon, but also much more flare)

    Sigma 1,4 TC

    Monopod

    Tripod



    Compared to my previous cameras (canon G1, and Minolta S404) I take much better pictures for my job (body and face pictures) than before. It's incredible the number of bad pictures I had with these cameras.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    I too just got:



    Canon 10 D

    Canon 24-70 2.8 L



    Awesome setup.



    I desperately want a Canon 17-40 and later the 70-300 to round things out.



    But the IS 28-135 is tempting.



    Need to get a speedlight since the 24-70, when extended, casts a shadow from the built-in flash, of course. (grr)



    I need a good backpack, the TENBA I just bought has straps that are of unequal length. If I can't return it I'll scream. I kept adjusting each strap like an idiot until I measured them and saw the defect. Kept feeling like it wasn't straight....arg!



    Anyway, see if you can reduce filesize for those pics by doing levels to make the whites white and the blacks black and then going to bitmap. Last I checked, OCR loves crisp black and white files to work with.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    I too just got:



    Canon 10 D

    Canon 24-70 2.8 L



    Awesome setup.



    I desperately want a Canon 17-40 and later the 70-300 to round things out.



    But the IS 28-135 is tempting.



    Need to get a speedlight since the 24-70, when extended, casts a shadow from the built-in flash, of course. (grr)



    I need a good backpack, the TENBA I just bought has straps that are of unequal length. If I can't return it I'll scream. I kept adjusting each strap like an idiot until I measured them and saw the defect. Kept feeling like it wasn't straight....arg!



    Anyway, see if you can reduce filesize for those pics by doing levels to make the whites white and the blacks black and then going to bitmap. Last I checked, OCR loves crisp black and white files to work with.




    The 28-135 is tempting, but if you have the 24-70 L, I doubt that you will use it, not because it's a bad lens, but because the 24-70 L is a superior lens, one of the best zoom with the 70-200 2,8 L.

    The 17-40 will be a much better choice.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    The 28-135 is tempting, but if you have the 24-70 L, I doubt that you will use it, not because it's a bad lens, but because the 24-70 L is a superior lens, one of the best zoom with the 70-200 2,8 L.

    The 17-40 will be a much better choice.




    Yeah I do need to get a 17-40 but I really want the 16-35 because it's f/2,8 and I kinda do want to do interior pics sans flash. You know, cute Thai girl leaning against the doorway with some bits of sunlight falling across her bikini-clad body. That kinda stuff. Flash makes it porn. Natural light makes it Art. But I'm decent with bouncing lights and Photoshop so I can fake it I'm sure. I can't bear to pay $1200+ for the 16-35 for basically just 2 f stops lower.



    The Canon Fisheye EF 15mm f/2.8 looks cute, I will want to do some fun distorted pics, Japanese style (goofy/cute/fun/crazy/pop video kinds of shots).



    Picked up the mini trekker (looks nice and bland, so I won't look too much like I'm packing a nice camera).



    Got the 420EX speedlite today. Decent. Now I need NiHM batteries and fast charger. When will it end
  • Reply 16 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I have the Micro trekker 200



    It's a fine bag. I will use for trekking in august. I want to photography marmot, and I know a place where you can shoot them at 15 feets.



    If you are interested by low light photography, why don't you take a fast prime like the Sigma EX 20 f1,8 ?
Sign In or Register to comment.