I tend to scan old photos at a rather high resolution of 1200 dpi. Black & White photos are scanned in Photo gray. I haven't done too much with color photos yet but I scan them in millions of colors but at a lower resolution as they can yield really large files. Written items such as photocopies of census, notes, letters, etc. I scan at 400 dpi. I find that I get better legibility if I scan these items as photogray and then try to edit it to black and white. If I don't get good results with the conversion, I keep the photogray. I have some photos like yours and I scan the photographer and location as it is great documentation. I also scan any handwritten notes on the back of the photo (I like preserving samples of my relatives handwriting.) Some photos that I scanned from the turn of the last century were on postcards. Again I scanned the back for the handwritten notes, addresses and the stamps. If there was very little writing with no address or stamp, I cropped it to just the handwritten note. I scan at the high resolutions because, I can zoom in on the details and find hidden facts, read some details on signs, or papers in the picture. I have been able to read some handwritten notes of names in the edges of some old linotype photos. These names I was able to tie to names in a cemetery lot at the town's cemetery. Hope this helps. BJ > Jinny wrote: > > I'm just getting my new scanner warmed up. I have a number of > photos/tintypes of some of my ancestors. I wanted to get some > feedback from > someone who has scanned photos, particularly the ones mounted on a > photographer's card with the name and town of the photographer on > the bottom. > I was wondering if people are scanning just the photo, or also > including the > card, so you have the photographer's name and location. I like > the photos > without this info, but thought the information might be useful in > some cases. > > Any thoughts to share on this? >