There is probably no one single answer to the question of preserving old family photographs, because each of us has our own capability to bear costs associated with the technology and because some of us are more comfortable working with the technology and some of us just want somebody else to do it for us. But I will try to give an answer covering as much of this as possible. First, I would reject a photocopier (what many people call a "Xerox machine" out of hand. It simply does not make very good copies, and the paper generally used (recycled pulpwood) does not have a long life expectancy. But even in saying that, if it came down to making a "Xerox" copy or none at all... The "Xerox" photocopy would be infinitely superior. Second, there are two problems inherent in digital photography at this point in time that should be considered. They are the cost of a technically adequate camera, and the uncertain longevity of digital media. Digital cameras that are anywhere nearly as good in producing or reproducing an image as an ordinary 35 mm camera are quite expensive at this time... probably out of the price range of most people interested in preserving family pictures. The ordinary 35 mm camera makes a much better photograph than the digital cameras you see around at the $300 to $500 price range... although as with all technology this can and probably will change drastically for the better in just a few years. Digital scanners that are quite inexpensive can make a better quality copy than your run-of-the-mill digital camera, but copying pictures that are not entirely flat is a risky business at best on a scanner. You might damage the old photo, and a 35 mm camera would almost undoubtedly make a better copy. But the biggest problem with digital copies of any kind may be the lack of longevity of the digital media. Properly maintained in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, film... particularly black-and-white film, can be considered a "permanent" medium. The diskette or laser disk (CD ROM, whatever) may last 10 or 20 years, but there is more to be concerned about than survival of the medium itself. Film and traditional photography are technically simple processes that continue on with little change and the photo itself can be copied back to film with only a small loss of image clarity if well-done. But is the CD ROM as we know it going to be around in 20 years... 50 years... 100 years? Probably not. You might get around that by copying to new digital media as they arise, but woe to you if some granddaughter forgets to do that and your great grandson ends up with an unreadable digital record. <G> The analogy is with those 45 RPM single records you collected in the 1950s. Try sticking that in your CD player and playing it now. <G> My personal preference is to try to preserve photos both in film and digital forms. Over the long-long haul, there may be less loss of clarity with a digital copy... but from where we sit now, that is hard to say. To copy old photographs I would (and do) use a 35 mm SLR (Single Lens Reflex) camera. I recommend a SLR because you sight through the actual camera lens and there is no problem with parallax. Sighting through a separate but parallel sight device causes a small offset in what you see and what you get, and this problem is at its very worse on close-up photography such as copying old photos. Grandma's picture doesn't look so good when the top of her head is cut out of the copy. <G> You can use a camera that is not SLR, but if you do you should take it from farther away and leave a good space between the edge of the photo and the edge of your sight when taking the picture. You should use black and white film if the original photo is black and white. By using the smallest possible lens aperture you minimize the effects of any bending of the old photo or any other potential focusing problems. I recently copied my grandparents hand-colorized wedding picture (circa 1914). It has been in an oval frame with glass that curves out as much as two inches away from the picture in the center, and over the years the picture itself had sagged outwards towards the glass leaving a half inch of outward curvature around the edge of the picture and the center of the picture curved outwards about another half-inch. My copy is almost perfect... the main flaw being some damage to the water-colors, mostly where they chipped off around the edge of the frame. After great hesitation and concern I did take that picture out of the frame to copy it. I don't think it would have copied any other way. But in general it is a bad idea to take pictures out of the frame. Very often they are stuck to the glass and you lose chunks in the process of trying to separate the photo from the glass. I used a copy stand that I mostly built for myself using a base and upright given to me by a camera shop many years ago. You can buy portable copy stands at good camera shops, with lights included. I used pure natural sunlight and made the copies in my driveway. 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. Richard White Tallahassee AHall10643@aol.com wrote: > > 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? > > > Subj: Saving Old Family Photos > > Date: 2/27/99 6:44:13 AM Eastern Standard Time > > From: SForeh4055@aol.com > > To: FLORIDA-L@rootsweb.com > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > >