Removing grey from…

"John Stafford" wrote in message

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up
(batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

Image / Adjust / Threshold then tidy up with the Brush tool. HTH
R.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:00:38 +0100, "Ragnar"
scribbled:

"John Stafford" wrote in message

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up
(batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

Image / Adjust / Threshold then tidy up with the Brush tool. HTH
R.

Yeah, just tidy up those FOUR THOUSAND images with the brush tool. Brilliant advice.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:00:38 +0100, "Ragnar"
scribbled:

"John Stafford" wrote in message

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean
up
(batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

Image / Adjust / Threshold then tidy up with the Brush tool. HTH
R.

Yeah, just tidy up those FOUR THOUSAND images with the brush tool. Brilliant advice.

And your advice is . . . ?

John Stafford wrote:

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up (batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

???
TIA!

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.

1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.

a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

On 8/4/09 11:39 AM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up (batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

???
TIA!

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.
1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.
a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

There are 4,210 images to process and I am limited to expending no more than 23-cents time to each (or total of just under $1000 of my time, which is a half-day). I’ve made three iterative change passes using overnight batch editing, and the outcome is now good enough to batch-OCR. I’ve turned it over to the new help to do that work.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. Recently declassified intelligence of the former USSR.

On 8/4/09 9:22 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:00:38 +0100, "Ragnar"
scribbled:

"John Stafford" wrote in message

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up
(batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

Image / Adjust / Threshold then tidy up with the Brush tool. HTH
R.

Yeah, just tidy up those FOUR THOUSAND images with the brush tool. Brilliant advice.

Yeah. 🙁 People seem to read a sentence and then forget it right away. Anyway, it’s done and I’m on to other things.

In article <C69DFA5C.7132%
says…

On 8/4/09 11:39 AM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

See: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp2.jpg

That is a very low resolution version of one of 4,200 images I must clean up (batch) so they print as just black and white.

So far, levels or curves has not helped because to get rid of the light grey, I loose some type.

???
TIA!

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.
1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.
a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

There are 4,210 images to process and I am limited to expending no more than 23-cents time to each (or total of just under $1000 of my time, which is a half-day). I’ve made three iterative change passes using overnight batch editing, and the outcome is now good enough to batch-OCR. I’ve turned it over to the new help to do that work.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. Recently declassified intelligence of the former USSR.

Sounds as though yopu have already solved the problem, not sure quite what you did in the end from youyr description. But I found that using a high band pass filter with radius set at around 10 pixels was enough to smooth out the grey background without losing any edges on the text or the bird image (in case you wanted to save that). Followed this with a simpole levels adjustment by setting the white and grey markers about 3/4 of the way to grey. Result is a nice crisp image of black text on white.

Mike

John Stafford wrote:

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.
1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.
a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

There are 4,210 images to process and I am limited to expending no more than 23-cents time to each (or total of just under $1000 of my time, which is a half-day). I’ve made three iterative change passes using overnight batch editing, and the outcome is now good enough to batch-OCR. I’ve turned it over to the new help to do that work.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. Recently declassified intelligence of the former USSR.

If you refuse to learn how to fix your problem using Photoshop then you can pick other choice.

– Toss them away.

– Get a better scanner and learn how to scan correctly.

– And if you have enough Photoshop skill (you should) then it shouldn’t take more than sonce seconds to around 1-2 minutes the most to fix each photo.

On 8/5/09 9:12 AM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.
1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.
a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

There are 4,210 images to process and I am limited to expending no more than 23-cents time to each (or total of just under $1000 of my time, which is a half-day). I’ve made three iterative change passes using overnight batch editing, and the outcome is now good enough to batch-OCR. I’ve turned it over to the new help to do that work.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. Recently declassified intelligence of the former USSR.

If you refuse to learn how to fix your problem using Photoshop then you can pick other choice.

I fixed the images on my own. I know how to use photoshop, you moron. I was simply asking for a little tip from the rest – you know, collaborate, communicate. That’s bad?

– Toss them away.

Now that would be stupid.

– Get a better scanner and learn how to scan correctly.

They are digital photographs taken at the research institute. Not scans. Scanning was not permitted.

– And if you have enough Photoshop skill (you should) then it shouldn’t take more than sonce seconds to around 1-2 minutes the most to fix each photo.

Even if I could possibly manually work on 4,210 images without interruption, at 2 minutes each that would take 140 hours, and I am allowed only four hours – and I made the target time. It’s over.

Are you drunk or something?

John Stafford wrote:

On 8/5/09 9:12 AM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Using Dodge/Burn on several separated layers (3 at least), then Quick Mask to jopin them together. Or because there are at least 3-4 different level of grey so you may want to adjust the 3-4 objects in 3-4 separated layers.
1. The upper part you may be able to do using Level

2. The lower part is a little tougher for Level, so you either.
a. Using Dodge/Burn

b. Type in the letter yourself.

There are 4,210 images to process and I am limited to expending no more than 23-cents time to each (or total of just under $1000 of my time, which is a half-day). I’ve made three iterative change passes using overnight batch editing, and the outcome is now good enough to batch-OCR. I’ve turned it over to the new help to do that work.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. Recently declassified intelligence of the former USSR.

If you refuse to learn how to fix your problem using Photoshop then you can pick other choice.

I fixed the images on my own. I know how to use photoshop, you moron. I was simply asking for a little tip from the rest – you know, collaborate, communicate. That’s bad?

Hey stupid! I didn’t say you are too dumb to fix it yourself.

– Toss them away.

Now that would be stupid.

That’s what I feel you should do.

– Get a better scanner and learn how to scan correctly.

They are digital photographs taken at the research institute. Not scans. Scanning was not permitted.

Hahaha then how the heck you got them digital photographs in the first place.

– And if you have enough Photoshop skill (you should) then it shouldn’t take more than sonce seconds to around 1-2 minutes the most to fix each photo.

Even if I could possibly manually work on 4,210 images without interruption, at 2 minutes each that would take 140 hours, and I am allowed only four hours – and I made the target time. It’s over.

Are you drunk or something?

I just had a feeling that you are too stupid to do it any way, so I shed you some light.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:57:07 -0500, Joel scribbled:

I just had a feeling that you are too stupid to do it any way, so I shed you some light.

Were you born this stupid or did you need years of drug and alcohol abuse and not a few head traumas, to get this way?

It’s pretty amazing how a guy asks a question, lays out his parameters, gets a couple of useful suggestions, figures out a suitable solution on his own, reports his findings, says thanks and then some of the usual suspects carry on and throw grenades at each other for several days.

—
Bob LaBlawgh
“It’s never too late to have a happy childhood.”

On 8/5/09 1:57 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

I fixed the images on my own. I know how to use photoshop, you moron. I was simply asking for a little tip from the rest – you know, collaborate, communicate. That’s bad?

Hey stupid! I didn’t say you are too dumb to fix it yourself.

You say it below.

– Toss them away.

Now that would be stupid.

That’s what I feel you should do.

They are immensely valuable documents: 4,210 pages of material declassified only last month.

– Get a better scanner and learn how to scan correctly.

They are digital photographs taken at the research institute. Not scans. Scanning was not permitted.

Hahaha then how the heck you got them digital photographs in the first place.

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

Here’s a box, for example: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp4.jpg

Was that clear?

– And if you have enough Photoshop skill (you should) then it shouldn’t take more than sonce seconds to around 1-2 minutes the most to fix each photo.

Even if I could possibly manually work on 4,210 images without interruption, at 2 minutes each that would take 140 hours, and I am allowed only four hours – and I made the target time. It’s over.

Are you drunk or something?

I just had a feeling that you are too stupid to do it any way, so I shed you some light.

There, you DID call me stupid.

Have a nice day – unless you have other plans.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:10:49 -0600, Bob LaBlawgh
scribbled:

It’s pretty amazing how a guy asks a question, lays out his parameters, gets a couple of useful suggestions, figures out a suitable solution on his own, reports his findings, says thanks and then some of the usual suspects carry on and throw grenades at each other for several days.

You find the way usenet’s been for decades amazing? Why not just paint "N00b!" on your forehead…

Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:10:49 -0600, Bob LaBlawgh
scribbled:

It’s pretty amazing how a guy asks a question, lays out his parameters, gets a couple of useful suggestions, figures out a suitable solution on his own, reports his findings, says thanks and then some of the usual suspects carry on and throw grenades at each other for several days.

You find the way usenet’s been for decades amazing? Why not just paint "N00b!" on your forehead…

Like I was saying….

—
Bob LaBlawgh
“It’s never too late to have a happy childhood.”

John Stafford wrote:

On 8/5/09 1:57 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

I fixed the images on my own. I know how to use photoshop, you moron. I was simply asking for a little tip from the rest – you know, collaborate, communicate. That’s bad?

Hey stupid! I didn’t say you are too dumb to fix it yourself.

You say it below.

– Toss them away.

Now that would be stupid.

That’s what I feel you should do.

They are immensely valuable documents: 4,210 pages of material declassified only last month.

– Get a better scanner and learn how to scan correctly.

They are digital photographs taken at the research institute. Not scans. Scanning was not permitted.

Hahaha then how the heck you got them digital photographs in the first place.

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Same with you, you ask for the technique then learn to adapt the technique.

Here’s a box, for example: http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp4.jpg
Was that clear?

It doesn’t matter what the sample is (I don’t care), I saw the sample and gave several methods for you to chose, and that’s all I care.

– And if you have enough Photoshop skill (you should) then it shouldn’t take more than sonce seconds to around 1-2 minutes the most to fix each photo.

Even if I could possibly manually work on 4,210 images without interruption, at 2 minutes each that would take 140 hours, and I am allowed only four hours – and I made the target time. It’s over.

Are you drunk or something?

I just had a feeling that you are too stupid to do it any way, so I shed you some light.

There, you DID call me stupid.

Did I? I guess I did.

Have a nice day – unless you have other plans.

Thanks, and same to you.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:32:21 -0600, Bob LaBlawgh
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:10:49 -0600, Bob LaBlawgh
scribbled:

It’s pretty amazing how a guy asks a question, lays out his parameters, gets a couple of useful suggestions, figures out a suitable solution on his own, reports his findings, says thanks and then some of the usual suspects carry on and throw grenades at each other for several days.

You find the way usenet’s been for decades amazing? Why not just paint "N00b!" on your forehead…

Like I was saying….

Yeah, I get it, you’re clueless. No need to go on about it.

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:22:42 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire

This is not the real world. This is usenet and no one owes you anything, not correct answers, not polite conversation, nothing.

images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

Because declassified documents disappear into the ether after being declassified, right?

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You also don’t get to decide what’s enough, when the conversation ends or how people should act.

On 8/6/09 10:04 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:22:42 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire

This is not the real world. This is usenet and no one owes you anything, not correct answers, not polite conversation, nothing.

The situation to which I referred was not usenet, it was a real-life situation.

images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

Because declassified documents disappear into the ether after being declassified, right?

You never know.

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You also don’t get to decide what’s enough, when the conversation ends or how people should act.

I’d love to meet you IRL. Fuck off.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:58 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/6/09 10:04 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:22:42 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire

This is not the real world. This is usenet and no one owes you anything, not correct answers, not polite conversation, nothing.

The situation to which I referred was not usenet, it was a real-life situation.

And where’d you bring it, genius? free hint, starts with a U.

images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

Because declassified documents disappear into the ether after being declassified, right?

You never know.

So you’re also a paranoid?

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You also don’t get to decide what’s enough, when the conversation ends or how people should act.

I’d love to meet you IRL. Fuck off.

Oh, cool, a fuckwit, a paranoid AND an internet tough guy! Woo! I’m shaking in my… bare feet. I’m SO scared! You’ve made me cry!

Go find a web board that’s moderated and caters to cry babies like yourself, usenet’s not for you.

On 8/6/09 10:53 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

Oh, cool, a fuckwit, a paranoid AND an internet tough guy! Woo! I’m shaking in my… bare feet. I’m SO scared! You’ve made me cry!

Don’t worry. Your mama is just upstairs on the first floor.

Go find a web board that’s moderated and caters to cry babies like yourself, usenet’s not for you.

I’ve been on a network longer than you have been alive – presuming you are alive. The stuff you write could be coming from a brain in a vat. A very small vat.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:26:27 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/6/09 10:53 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

Oh, cool, a fuckwit, a paranoid AND an internet tough guy! Woo! I’m shaking in my… bare feet. I’m SO scared! You’ve made me cry!

Don’t worry. Your mama is just upstairs on the first floor.

Wow, mother ranks, how ever so grammar school of you.

Go find a web board that’s moderated and caters to cry babies like yourself, usenet’s not for you.

I’ve been on a network longer than you have been alive – presuming you are alive. The stuff you write could be coming from a brain in a vat. A very small vat.

Many people have erroneously made similar claims. Seriously, go find a web board, they cater to people who can’t handle open and free speech.

On 8/6/09 2:36 PM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

I’ve been on a network longer than you have been alive – presuming you are alive. The stuff you write could be coming from a brain in a vat. A very small vat.

Many people have erroneously made similar claims. Seriously, go find a web board, they cater to people who can’t handle open and free speech.

Look it up, you freaking oxygen thief.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:26:20 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

On 8/6/09 2:36 PM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

I’ve been on a network longer than you have been alive – presuming you are alive. The stuff you write could be coming from a brain in a vat. A very small vat.

Many people have erroneously made similar claims. Seriously, go find a web board, they cater to people who can’t handle open and free speech.

Look it up, you freaking oxygen thief.

Look up your lack of a clue? It’s so remarkable they’ve documented it?

Wowsers.

You’re sure a credit to Winona State University. They must love the publicity your impeccable manners bring them.

John Stafford wrote:

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You build him some doccument?

On 8/6/09 6:43 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

On 8/5/09 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Joel" wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

Permit me to explain. The United States Office of Research and Assessment (USORA) declassified certain boxes of documents. My research colleague had to visit the USORA in person to look at them. They do not permit persons to scan the documents. He photographed each page with an inexpensive point-and-shoot digital camera, which is permitted. (But they don’t allow flash or additional light and he was working in their warehouse, thus the unfortunate lighting.)

You still don’t get it, do you? it doesn’t matter how cheap or expensive the scanner or P&S camera is, but learn to use it correctly.

Look, this is the real world. When a person suddenly has a chance to acquire images and he doesn’t know squat about photography, he plunges ahead anyway. What’s he supposed to do, ignore the opportunity so that he can take a class while history passes him by?

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You build him some doccument?

Reading problem? I am building him a document camera. Its primary virtue is that it foldable, compact and lightweight.

John Stafford wrote:

FWIW, I am building him a document camera to facilitate the next opportunity, but it cannot include lights – that’s their rule. And shooting in a warehouse where the designated work table is unevenly lit is a bit of a challenge.

Enough

You build him some doccument?

Reading problem? I am building him a document camera. Its primary virtue is that it foldable, compact and lightweight.

It sounds like a bright idea.