reframing convex photos

SteveB

Grumbler in Training
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Posts
9
Loc
Northeast Pennsylvania
A customer brought in two old convex photos (no frame or glass - only the photos). The items are in poor condition but apparently have some value in preserving family history. The customer was looking for options to 'flatten them and re-frame' (thinking they had curved from age)

I suggested a shadow box approach with oval window matting, but wasn't connecting. So I began looking at cost of convex glass at InLine Ovals (after reviewing some grumble posts searching on convex photos)

Now, to expose my ignorance, never having seen a framed version of this situation, i'm trying to figure out how these convex photos go together behind convex glass in an oval frame? i'm imagining that the edges of the photo contact the glass but then follow the contour of the glass without touching. I can then imagine the glass fitting into an oval rabbit. Would the oval frame be as deep as 2 to 3 inches (which seems to be the depth of the convex from front to back. I guess i need a mental image of what i'd be trying to put together.

Thanks for any help offered.
Steve
 
The glass bubbles to the front. We have added a narrow oval mat to cover bad spots on the photo but they generally fit against the glass. The rabbet in the older frames was shallow but wider to hold the glass. Finding the right size frame is sometimes a challenge.
 
I order all my convex glass from Inline Ovals and have never had a problem. One just arrived Friday for the customers frame and it is done and out the door. For the first time I am having Inline manufacture an odd size convex utilizing a template that you send to them, takes about 4 weeks. Inline is one of the best companies in the framing world to deal with, they are always on the top of my list!

Regards,
Lynn
 
SteveB, You look up a past thread of mine that shows how to make those wierd sized ovals :D , or you can do what we and most people do frequently:

Order the whole shooten match from ILO. As Lynn said, they are tops. They are very easy to deal with and have no problem with the weird size or shapes.

They have some new shapes out now that are VERY exciting. I love the new capsul shape for brides hand boquets.

Yes, and no matter what you have read, heard, or FACTS says, the photo touches the edge of the glass.
 
Baer, it isn't absolutely essential for you to mention FACTS every time you want to be condescending, is it? Your otherwise excellent information is, in my mind, somehow diminished with that final crack.

But then, it's early and I started the day looking for an escaped chicken. (Found him behind the washing machine.)
 
Thank you for your responses. The two photos i have bubble in, not out. Maybe they're not convex photos at all? Concave or just warped? they do seem to be about 13 3/4 by 19 and indeed seem to be old enough to be like the 'crayon enlargements' i saw in other threads. I do have a call into InLine Ovals. Confused
 
One option would be to have the photos copied. If they’re in poor shape they could also be restored.

The cost of copy / restoration could be less than the framing expense of working with convex photos.

Doug
 
Doug,

Because the photos are convex, I would anticipate a problem with copying them. Because they aren’t flat, and the depth of field with a copy camera (or scanner) is so narrow, getting the whole image focused sharply would, I think, be nearly impossible.
 
Originally posted by Bill Henry:
Because the photos are convex, I would anticipate a problem with copying them...
Au contrare, Bill. (a little French lingo there, to impress Baer).

A digital photographer has reproduced several of them for us, and "Photoshopped" away the edge tears and foxing.

Digital Custom is one service I recommend. They do an excellent job with all kinds of photo reproduction & restoration.
 
Bill

You wouldn't want to use your flatbed scanner
but any good copy camera has plenty of depth of field.

We've done many of these in our photolab.

A look at the lens tells me I have about 3 inches of depth of field at a distance of two feet using f8.

Doug
 
Okay, guys, I stand corrected.

… darn, it’s the first time I’ve been wrong since 1956 when I swung at an outside pitch in Little League.
 
LOL. Ron and the chicken.

If the photos are concave, then you will need a shadow box and regular glass should do the trick.
 
Doug, while I'd think DOF would not be a problem with a copy camera setup, if the bend to the photo is severe enough, it could cause a distorted look to the copy since, in theory, only one point on the photo is parallel to the film (or sensor) plane in the camera.
John
 
Gee, if they are truly concaved, just use a fish-eye lens and everything will stay normal. :D

Baer, it isn't absolutely essential for you to mention FACTS every time you want to be condescending, is it? Your otherwise excellent information is, in my mind, somehow diminished with that final crack.
No Ron, nothing is absolute when it comes to condesention. But as I just knew the way some threads take off down that "F" road with no regard for what the question REALLY was, I figured I would just stick a speed bump in it. Just to keep it all on the same road.
thumbsup.gif


As for diminishment, HEY that's great; shows that the diet is really working. Thanks for noticing.

Hope you got your chicken choked ok. :D
 
John

I’m not a physics expert but here’s the way I understand it.

A regular camera lens is designed with a focus field that is actually curved to minimize distortion as we record our three dimensional world onto a flat film plane.

For flat copy work a regular lens will therefore distort so we use something called a flat field lens specifically designed for recording flat copy onto a flat film plane.

Now don’t tell anyone but when we copy convex photos we still use the flat field lens because you just can’t tell the difference.

Actually Baer Charlton's comment isn't too far off. The original photo is probably distorted as a result of stretching the print into the convex shape. We may well be correcting the original distortion by copying with a flat field lens.

Not that anyone could tell the difference.

Doug
 
Back
Top