Is there a GADSDEN CO, FL mailing list? Thanks! Liz Gerlits Palm Bay, FL

Ann, There's a company called Play, Inc. that manufactures a device named Snappy. It connects between any video source output (VCR, camcorder, etc.) and a computer and captures still frames from the video signal. It can be purchased at computer stores. I've used it with very good results. But, the quality of the capture will be directly dependent on the quality of the video signal. It sells for around $100.00. I recall seeing other devices on the market similar to Snappy, but I don't have any information on them. Using a video capture device to digitize your photos from a camcorder or VCR will give superior results to taking a photo of your television screen. I hope this helps. Eric Thomas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- At 05:16 PM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote: >Steven, > This is a start. I copied all my old photos from my album with a >cam-corder. It was quite a long task, but I was going away from home >for a while and the thoughts of a fire kept me determined to finish the >task. I propped my album up on an easel and using the macro setting so >that I could get in close, I was able to film even the smallest >snapshot. I did hook it up through a small TV so that I could see what >I was doing. I don't know if this is absolutely necessary. They turned >out simply wonderful as I looked at them on the larger TV screen. Now >here is the hitch. I planned to photo them off my TV screen, but have >never gotten to this. I really think it will work, but can't say for >sure. At least I was able to preserve them from harm and you could do >this without taking them out of someone's home. > How would you get them into your computer from a camcorder? I don't >know about this. Ann in Conyers, Ga. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Researching Surnames~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BLACKWELL-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1883-1930) FISHER-Pennsylvania (circa 1868-1908) WATKINS-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1888-1940) CAMPBELL-Scotland County, North Carolina (circa 1849-1950) IRBY-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1879-1910) WILLIAMS-Camden County, New Jersey & Florida (circa 1865-1891) BRYDIE-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1885-1940) THOMAS-Duval County, Florida & Phila., PA (circa 1849-1913) WREN-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1899-1950) SMITH-Hanover County, Virginia (circa 1878-1910) TISDALE-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1889-1921) POWELL-North Carolina & Philadelphia, PA (circa 1838-1915) CROSS-Lunenburg County, Virginia (circa 1898-1910) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am stil searching for info on Fletcher and Hannah Williams and their family found in Sumter Co. in 1880. I am searching too for info on Wilson C. Williams in the household with Fletcher in 1880. He is the father of Fletcher. Is any one researching this family. Can some one look up the death index for Wilson C.? He was in his 70's in 1880. Does Fl. have any death records before the 1900's? Bobbye

I have a Mustek DP111 that has Adobe and I also do mine in Jpeg. They look good every one tells me when I send them via e-mail. I have also scanned and made photos on the glossy paper. They look good too. Bobbye

At 07:55 PM 2/27/99 -0500, Peggy Munroe wrote: >I use Adobe Photo Deluxe, which saves them in a PDD format. I often >convert to JPEG to save space. I have never known the difference in >the files except for space. Why is TIFF better? I can't explain the details in short terms, but basically it amounts to .jpg loses some of the pixels which make up the photo. You will not notice the difference until you start doing things like enlarging, printing, and other things. Actually, keeping them in .pdd (Adobe Photo Deluxe) or .psd (Photo Shop Deluxe) is the ideal answer, except that you should also go ahead and convert them into a shareable format for others. Both .jpg and .tif are pretty universal, but if you check with any of the commercial places that use digital images (my son worked for one until 2 weeks ago) they will tell you never to use .jpg for your long term retaining format. The .jpg format is used for internet and electronic transmission of images. It's smaller, and if it's a smaller format, what does that mean, except that something has to be missing from the other format. The important thing in easy words is that you lose some of the coloring and such with .jpg and you do not lose as much with .tif Although most of your major commercial printers, where a future descendant might take these digital copies to get prints made, will probably have the latest and greatest programs, the thing to remember that someone pointed out earlier, is 'change of formats over time'. Think about how often we see .pcx anymore (or maybe you never have because it's already before your time and less than 10 years old!) There are other formats that have dropped by the wayside, just as .jpg, .psd, .pdd, etc. will. So will the programs that read them currently. We all think of the computer as being a 'forever' thing since they tell us the 'CD-Rom lifetime will be good for xxx compared to the diskettes limited lifetime of xxx'. BUT, as genealogists, we know that we need to be thinking in terms of 'forever' or centuries; neither of which are available yet. Just as most computers today do not have 5-1/4 floppies on them, so the computers of 10 years from now may not have CD-Roms. So, the longest saving choice is actually taking new photos of the photos, the second choice is to scan them in (actually best is to do both if you can) and with scans, save them in the original format plus a universal format, such as .tif (then convert them to .jpg if you want to electonically send them. And if you thought this was a long answer, wait until someone tries to explain things in *real* detail. <smile> Hope I didn't make just more mud for anybody. And I can try to help more if you like. Sherry L. (Bouse) Nisly

You wrote: >Probably with adobe photoshop. You can >change the contrast, the colors and some of the plug-ins work miracles.) >If you scan them, scan them at a minium of 300dpi (400dpi or more if your >intend to enlarge them and would like them printed on something other than a >ink jet printer), RGB, the best file format would be TIFF, >Dee > I use Adobe Photo Deluxe, which saves them in a PDD format. I often convert to JPEG to save space. I have never known the difference in the files except for space. Why is TIFF better? Peggy

Steven, This is a start. I copied all my old photos from my album with a cam-corder. It was quite a long task, but I was going away from home for a while and the thoughts of a fire kept me determined to finish the task. I propped my album up on an easel and using the macro setting so that I could get in close, I was able to film even the smallest snapshot. I did hook it up through a small TV so that I could see what I was doing. I don't know if this is absolutely necessary. They turned out simply wonderful as I looked at them on the larger TV screen. Now here is the hitch. I planned to photo them off my TV screen, but have never gotten to this. I really think it will work, but can't say for sure. At least I was able to preserve them from harm and you could do this without taking them out of someone's home. How would you get them into your computer from a camcorder? I don't know about this. Ann in Conyers, Ga.

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:46:45 -0500 (EST) acecpi@webtv.net (James Johnson) writes: >K-Mart has a Kodak Image Wizard digital copier that makes excellent >copies of old photos on Kodak paper. Plus, you can enlarge very small >prints to 8 X 10. The cost was about $10 per sheet, less with a >coupon. >This is less than a photo shop will charge and the copies are very >good. > If you have a copy center or Office Depot around, you can have them scanned on their color laser copier and it will look better than the original. Buy a pack of photo paper and tell them to use your paper. With the price of the paper and copying, you will have $2.00 in each photo. Don't quote me, but I have been told the laser copies last indefinitely.

K-Mart has a Kodak Image Wizard digital copier that makes excellent copies of old photos on Kodak paper. Plus, you can enlarge very small prints to 8 X 10. The cost was about $10 per sheet, less with a coupon. This is less than a photo shop will charge and the copies are very good.

Greetings List! I am searching for descendants of William E. and Julia Morse BROWN of Oneida Co. New York. At one time there were some living in Orange Co., Fla. around Zellwood. Have some limited information. I am descended from William and Julia Brown as they were my paternal grt grand parents. Any info appreciated! Regards, David a native Oneidan who grew up in Lake Co.

-----Original Message----- From: Aubrey Cloud <AGCLOUD@email.msn.com> To: Epanske@aol.com <Epanske@aol.com> Date: Saturday, February 27, 1999 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Saving Old Photos >Hi > >I use a camera stand with the camera mounted on the height adjustable >rod. > >With a high quality camera w/special lenses in order to get real >close-ups, I manually focus the picture and take the picture. > >The camera stand base is flat black to prevent reflections. I got a 12" by >12" by 18 guage flat piece of galvanized iron and spray painted it >flat black. It is placed on the stand base. > >I use magnets [non-light eflective] to hold down the corners and sides of not flat pictures. > >I take the pictures outside on a sunny day. This avoids having to buy >special lighting for indoors. > >I take the exposed film [100 speed] to Wal-Mart and they send it to >their processor in Bentonville, Arkansas. They can put up to 100 >photos on one CD in 5 resolutions. You get the photos on Cd, the >negatives and a thumbnail of the pictures on the CD. > >I use Picture Publisher 5.0 to bring the pictures from the CD-ROM >drive onto the monitor where I can do a host of things to the picture, >such as cropping, change contrast, brightness, color enhancements, >repair tears, cracks, take off blemishes, stains and so forth. I save >the image to a file on the hard drive. > >You can print the pictures out onto glossy Kodak photo paper. Ordinary >paper is not suitable. > >If you have a scanner, you can scan the photos in and save them to a >file and later with Read/Write Cd Rom drive, write them to a CD. This >is very slow. > >I do not recommend using a Digital Camera. The quality is not as good >as the above methods. I guess it depends on the resolution you want. On a 3 1\2" floppy there is only 1.44megs, so the resolution is extremely limited. > >With the pictures in a file, I use Corel WordPerfect 8.0 to do the >text and use the graphics utility to import the pictures onto the >pages. Earlier, I had several old pictures reproduced professionally, but at a very high cost. > >Hope this answers your questions. > >Aubrey G. Cloud > >

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E3333C7637BD05320625E6A9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------E3333C7637BD05320625E6A9 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <36D7E23D.BDAE7A4A@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:17:01 -0500 From: William Brown <willbees@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SForeh4055@aol.com Subject: Re: Saving Old Family Photos References: <c711c4a8.36d7da54@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve, I have had extremely good results with a digital camera. Not only can you instantly see if your copy is good, but you can select from several formats (JPG, BMP) to save in. The storage capabilities are also excellent. Mine uses a floppy disk for storage. The pictures are computer ready and can be emailed or just stored (of course always make backups) and copied from floppies later, if you wish, at most normal photo processing places (Eckerd, Walgreens). The pictures display wonderfully on the computer and the cameras come with (or you can buy additional) photo processing programs to enhance the photos and they really do come out better than the old original. My Canon digital was an investment at $699. but with trips to Disney parks (3), family photos, and other vacations, it paid for itself quickly with savings in processing and film. The batteries are rechargeable with about 3 hours of shooting time (100 photos +/-) between recharges - about 2-4 hours. Couldn't do without it now. Bill Brown willbees@mediaone.net Jacksonville, Fl SForeh4055@aol.com wrote: > Hey Florida list members, I am in the process of trying to copy many old > family photos and wanted to check with the Genealogy Community to see what the > best meathod of copying would be. Most of the oldest photos are in the > possession of grandparents and great aunts; however, many are hesitant about > loaning the old pictures out for professional copying. I have considered > buying a portable copy-machine, digital camera or using my cam-corder and > transferring the pictures on to my computer. All of this is very expensive. I > feel I am running out of time, because several of the great-Aunts are in their > mid to late 80's and not in the best health. What is the best way to go into > a home and get good copyies that are of good quality? Has anyone elese ran > into this Problem? I have about 200, pictures between 4 people that need to be > copied and shared with the rest of the family, some of these pictures are over > 70 years old!!!!! I know once these relative pass- on their children will > divide the photos up and spread the originals out to all four corners of the > world. Now is the perfect time to document my photo heritage. Any ideas????? > Thanks so very much, Steven Glen Forehand of Panama City FL. --------------E3333C7637BD05320625E6A9--

In a message dated 2/27/99 10:21:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwhite@pone.com writes: << My advice is: Either make your own copies or take them to a reputable photographer to make them, but in any case making them with a film-type camera is best. Digital copies are handy to have too, though. >> You can also take your scans to a lab with a film recorder and have negatives made from the scans. (400dpi, RGB file format TIFF or PIC) Dee

In a message dated 2/27/99 10:03:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, mjcrews@brightok.net writes: << I saw the post concerning putting a piece of glass over photos to hold them flat. I cannot caution you enough to be sure these are not brittle if you do this or are not curled too much. It will crack them and ruin the original. This is what happened in a photography shop when the person doing the work was not knowledgeable enough to be coping old photos. Take those that are brittle to a well-known experienced person to have the copying done. It will be worth the price to preserve these. >> Glass can also cause reflections. Dee

In a message dated 2/27/99 7:54:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, AHall10643@aol.com writes: << Please post your answers to the list, I am interested and I imagine there are others that are interested, also I am thinking about renting a copier to take to a family reunion where I have thought about asking all participants to bring their old pictures, any suggestions here? I just read your second post and don't believe the copier will get the results you want. Take a computer and a scanner to the reunion and scan the photographs. these can be adjusted to get clear copies later. We have several that are better than the originals after my granddaughter worked on shadowing, etc. (I wish I knew how.)>>(Probably with adobe photoshop. You can change the contrast, the colors and some of the plug-ins work miracles.) If you scan them, scan them at a minium of 300dpi (400dpi or more if your intend to enlarge them and would like them printed on something other than a ink jet printer), RGB, the best file format would be TIFF, Dee

Thank you, Richard for such an informative posting. I am going to save it and ask for that camera for my birthday. My friend's photo that was ruined by an unskilled person and was one of those in an oval frame and was over 100 years old. I was trying to help prevent someone else making this error in attempting copies when I suggested taking these to an experienced person. This may still be the best route if we don't have good equipment of our own. Thanks again for your posting the information. Marianne Crews

Anyone living in Pinellas County that would be kind enough to do an obit look-up for me? I am willing to pay for copy and postage. Sharon Davis

I saw the post concerning putting a piece of glass over photos to hold them flat. I cannot caution you enough to be sure these are not brittle if you do this or are not curled too much. It will crack them and ruin the original. This is what happened in a photography shop when the person doing the work was not knowledgeable enough to be coping old photos. Take those that are brittle to a well-known experienced person to have the copying done. It will be worth the price to preserve these. Marianne Crews

I agree with Mary Ellen's and Marriane's recommendations.. I was in a similar dilemea a few months ago, & posted to the various lists... the response was tremendous...almost all the recommendations from those with expertise were the same especially if you want to guarantee archival quality photo copies (something that will be around for a while). I will summarize the advice I was given and imput some of my own experience . ..............................PHOTOGRAPH the original photos................... Most of the experts do not recommend scanning old photos due to the chance of heat damage, especially to metal (tin type). I could not believe how well the tins photographed...better and clearer than the original....Another factor to consider is that scanned photo's lose some of their resolution and photo's saved to floppy disk can "fail" (a fact I can attest to). Scanned photo's printed on photo paper have a life expectancy of only about 2 years before they begin to fade. They recommend photographing on BW film. (BW has a life span of 50-100 + years; color photos only up to about 25 before deteriation beginsdepending on the film and paper used ). I suggest going to to a photo supply shop for the film. There are several types and brands and they can direct you to the one that will be right for what you want to accomplish. The new BW films that can be auto processed (C41) give a reddish to brown tint to the BW photo (can be processed at Eckerd's 1Hour Photo for example). For true BW you would need to buy professional BW film and take to a full service photo lab.(no Eckerd 1Hour service). I photograph all of our photo's on BW. Then if they need to be retouched, I scan the "new" photo, make the corrections and repairs, print on the computer photo paper, then REPHOTO with my 35mm camera. (there will be some loss of resolution, but for severely damaged photo's it the only way to do it at home.) I use our 35mm camera. I purchased magnifying lenses (cost $42.00 for a set of 3 - 1X, 2X, & 4X ) that screw onto the regular 50mm lense and can be stacked. (this is much less than the macro lense - $350 +). I also purchased a shutter cable ($7.50) to reduce the risk of jarring the camera. One can use a tripod (so the camera is steady) and the glass technique, which is the most economical avenue and also easist for large photo's. I do recommend adding the shutter cable if your camera allows for attaching one. Because of the number of family photo's I am copying, I purchased a copy stand (economy version $120.00). This gives me the ability to move the camera up and down over the photo and mine has lights to give equal lighting to the original photo. The best insurance for preserving you family photo's is to make a lot of copies and SHARE.... and for the original old photos, store away from heat, cold, moisture and esecially LIGHT, in acid free archival sleeves, albums or paper. (there are many choices). I place the negatives in labeled archival safe sleeves (available by at most proffessional photo supply shops or by mail order (about 20-25 cents each) and then store in a fireproof safe. "A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"... seeing the delight and suprise on a relatives face when they see photo's of ancestors or long passed relatives is priceless.... Hope this will be of help... Deborah > > If you have a good regular camers, get a set of extension lenses (sometimes > called closeup lenses) a tripod and a piece of clear glass. Should cost > under $75 for the whole kit. You then photograph each one onsite and you'll > have the added bonus of negatives. Sending it to a place that uses Kodak's > processing will give you another usefull item -- a thumnail of each photo. > You can take that and copy it to distribute to relatives and ask if they > want copies, or if they can identify some of the folks. > > Good luck! > > Mary Ellen > > e-mail: mewexler@buffnet.net > Co-host Okaloosa County FLGenWeb page: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~flokaloo/Okaloosa.htm > Edge mailing list: EDGE-L@rootsweb.com > Harvey mailing list: HARVEY-L@rootsweb.com > EDGE/HARVEY family page: http://www.buffnet.net/~mewexler/ > Genealogy Help page: http://www.buffnet.net/~mewexler/help_pg.htm > >

Your welcome, James... but I forgot something and also thought I should add a bit... I forgot to mention that whether you use a tripod or a camera stand, you need a remote release device for the shutter button. That keeps you from shaking or moving the camera slightly when you trigger the shutter. Also, I have to confess that I am not familiar with cameras more recently made than my Minolta that I bought shortly after I returned from Vietnam... about 1972. Specifically, I am not familiar with cameras that autofocus, which I suppose also select shutter speed and aperture. I don't know to what extent you can manually control those newer cameras. But the least possibility of problems with focus or movement are at the fastest shutter speed and the smallest aperture. The more light you put on the subject being photographed, the smaller the aperture and the faster shutter speed that an automatic camera would select. I'm going to have to look into a copy stand myself. I too have elderly relatives that won't let go of photos even for a few minutes. <G> RW James Crews wrote: > > Thank you, Richard for such an informative posting. I am going to save it > and ask for that camera for my birthday. My friend's photo that was ruined > by an unskilled person and was one of those in an oval frame and was over > 100 years old. I was trying to help prevent someone else making this error > in attempting copies when I suggested taking these to an experienced person. > This may still be the best route if we don't have good equipment of our own. > Thanks again for your posting the information. > Marianne Crews