At 12:22 AM 12/13/01 -0500, you wrote: >The way I make contact sheets from my 35MM film strips is I lay them out on >the flatbed scanner glass to make a full 8 X 10 scan. Then once I have it What scanner are you using to be able to do this? I would just get black blobs because of no backlighting. I have flipped my lightbox over on top and get at least something I can see easier, but it is full of lines from the diffuser panel. To print from that would be a waste of time and paper. Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

At 11:14 PM 12/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >With a 4"x5" transparency adapter (my Epson 1200 psu scanner has this), >you can scan 8 (2 by 4) horizontal 35mm negatives or 9 (3 by 3) vertical >negatives at a time using the transparency backlite. In this mode, the >scanner automatically corrects for the negative source. Even though this >isn't a full 6x6 contact area, depending on your Dean, What kind of results do you get with this arrangement: passable? good? excellent? I'm trying to decide if spending $700 to $1000 on a dedicated transparency scanner would be better spent on a new state-of-the-art flatbed with transparency adaptor. I'm currently using an HP Scanjet 5100C (no adaptor). Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

My impression (not yet tested with the same pictures) is that 35mm slides and film are best scanned with the older HP slide scanner (SCSI connection) one at a time. It was used a few months ago for a whole set of slides saved at 600x900 pixels for half to full page printouts with captions in a word processor file. The new Microtek flatbed with 4x5 transparency section in the lid and FireWire connection has unfamiliar software settings. Took quite a lot of time experimenting with a few slides over the weekend and might not have picked the best settings. Made a black paper "mask" for the new flatbed, similar to the method used for single slides with the full-size Transparent Media Adaptor lid of an earlier flatbed. Didn't seem to be a good idea to lay out four slides at a time with different color balance -- indoor people, outdoor people, graveyard with a dark sky. Doubt that I could tell the difference in the scanner used except perhaps at 1200-2400 dpi using files of 16 mb or larger. I don't save archival size images of slides but sometimes use 2400 dpi for a small section to try and read printing on signs or food package at a picnic. Some important family pictures are half-frame slides taken early 1970s. Any "adaptor" that allows viewing of slides and film is better than no picture at all. Scans of 35mm slides with specialty film scanner were much better quality than scans of snapshots printed from the same slides. A specialized slide/film scanner is probably worth buying it you have hundreds to scan. The most expensive slide scanner might not show much difference compared to a medium price slide scanner. Some people commenting on equipment have far different feelings than I do about archival size copies of images. Some are happy with simple adaptors and some are unhappy after spending a lot of money on equipment. I don't think the most expensive equipment or software is any guarantee of satisfaction for a family history project. Elizabeth in Canada ----- Original Message ----- > I'm trying to decide if spending $700 to $1000 on a dedicated transparency > scanner would be better spent on a new state-of-the-art flatbed with > transparency adaptor. I'm currently using an HP Scanjet 5100C (no adaptor). > Linda

In a message dated 12/13/01 12:06:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, mcgeehd@home.com writes: > Is > there any way to create a contact print of a whole page on a scanner or > some other home copying device? > > The way I make contact sheets from my 35MM film strips is I lay them out on the flatbed scanner glass to make a full 8 X 10 scan. Then once I have it scanned I open PSP (Paint Shop Pro) 7.0 and click on the file I just scanned and then click on Color and then negative image and it will convert the negative strips back to look like a 35MM slide with the negative number showing under the photo. There you have a cheap contact sheet. Just my 2¢ worth. Join Now! Subscribe: KYHeritageFolklore-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Terry Thacker I look at doing genealogy as writing OUR own family Bible. Our ancestors are the things that have came to pass, and our descendants are the ones to fulfill it.

Is it possible for a photo lab to make a contact print of a whole page of 35 mm strips? If so, is it usually costly to have this done? Is there any way to create a contact print of a whole page on a scanner or some other home copying device? It would sure make it easier to retrieve the correct neg strip if I had a "contact print" of the whole sheet of strips. . With a 4"x5" transparency adapter (my Epson 1200 psu scanner has this), you can scan 8 (2 by 4) horizontal 35mm negatives or 9 (3 by 3) vertical negatives at a time using the transparency backlite. In this mode, the scanner automatically corrects for the negative source. Even though this isn't a full 6x6 contact area, depending on your requirements this might be acceptable. I suspect that you could rig some other backlight to scan a traditional 35mm contact print (6 by 6, or more) by using the full area of the scanner. When I put the Epson in the "TPU for neg Film" mode, it will automatically only scan the 4x6" area illuminated by the transparency backlight. I don't know about the behaviour of other scanners. -Dean

I have a question for all you photo experts out there. I am still working on sorting, cataloguing and organizing all of my pictures -- and I have a lot. I took most of the really old pictures to a photo shop and they created 35 mm negs for me. They did a fabulous job and gave me a good price due to the quantity. I have properly stored my original photos and copies, but now I am faced with lots of 35 mm neg strips. I am ordering acid free sheets for three ring binders that hold these strips. But I also notice in the same section of the catalogue that they sell insert sheets for contact prints. Is it possible for a photo lab to make a contact print of a whole page of 35 mm strips? If so, is it usually costly to have this done? Is there any way to create a contact print of a whole page on a scanner or some other home copying device? It would sure make it easier to retrieve the correct neg strip if I had a "contact print" of the whole sheet of strips. . I hope this makes sense to somebody out there. Thanks, Phyllis in NJ

Family 35 mm negatives are arranged in the order taken in holders, and strips numbered to match contact sheets printed in a home darkroom with one less strip per page. Those are also in binders in the same order. A shop would likely charge a fair bit for printing because of handling. Some negative holders are clear and might be okay printed like full page contacts. Best to ask locally. Purchased a film holder to make contact sheets with a scanner that has an early model of Transparent Media Adaptor 300 dpi. A TMA is like a second full size scanner built into the lid. Only used for a few sample pages of contacts. Some of the 35mm slides are organized in clear holders and filed in ring binders after scanning. Mostly scanned originals (loose) organized in archival sheet protectors along with printouts from Family Tree Maker scrapbooks for individuals and marriages. Elizabeth in Canada ----- Original Message ----- > Is it possible for a photo lab to make a contact print of a whole page > of 35 mm strips? If so, is it usually costly to have this done? Is > there any way to create a contact print of a whole page on a scanner or > some other home copying device?

Hi, You might want to Try Digital Photo Libarian at this web site... http://www.oneilsoftware.com/index.shtml Any opinions.... Debbe Hagner

Elizabeth, Having scanned 25,000+ photos, you must have set some records. At the rate I'm going, I won't live long enough to scan 25000, thank God I don't have that many. Tell me, do you edit the photo as you scan or do you get the best scan possible without heavy editing and move on? I have a number of tintypes that are pretty badly damaged, and while I can get a much improved image, it takes hours with the clone brush to cover all the cracks. Perhaps I should be scanning just to get it done and then go back to the editing after all the photos are neatly filed in the computer. Earlier I think you mentioned that you save your photos in a database format. What program do you use? Right now I just save to a subdirectory on my harddrive (will transfer to a CD very soon) and use FlipAlbum to view the various groups. It works quite well, but without any search capabilities other than file name. KAY --- Kay Keating's outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 12/4/2001

Images are *always* edited for the intended purpose at the time of scanning except for occasional items scanned for a friend. Some slide scans will be copied to a CD as uncompressed TIF and I've already e-mailed cropped JPGs that are small enough for her to share with relatives immediately. She might want to try editing the TIF copies for a book. I don't have the artistic skill to improve a badly damaged photo but can usually reduce the most distracting flaws in a few minutes. Source documents received today have nearly matching blobs that must have been dust on the lens of a microfilm reader. They are readable on screen at 600 pixels wide except where the handwriting of the photocopy is unclear. The only time we copied a set of slides without editing each one was about December 1995 using a video camera and Snappy gadget. Crashed the hard drive, had to reload Windows 95 and redo all of them. They were carefully edited on the second time round and used for a video tape with pre-recorded sound track. Also switched to a better/faster image editing program soon after that experience. I want images ready to print and share, not huge archival files that would require lengthy editing sessions and still not be suitable for small faces cropped from group pictures. Multiple scans at the time are best to show each face for box chart, head and shoulders of a married couple for the group sheet and the whole picture. Sometimes sections of documents are scanned separately from the overall paper to show important details. Thumbnails are printed from Paint Shop as a worksheet for each scanning session. Images in Windows folders are normally copied to a CD-RW after each scanning session and also added to the appropriate FTM file. I haven't found a need for any additional album product or separate database. The only numbered pictures are same-day events like a wedding collection from multiple cameras or a vacation trip that needs to be in the same sequence as route travelled. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keating Kay" > Tell me, do you edit the photo as you scan or do you get the > best scan possible without heavy editing and move on? I have a number of > tintypes that are pretty badly damaged, and while I can get a much improved > image, it takes hours with the clone brush to cover all the cracks.

Hello, Is it possible to receive the list messages inside of the email rather than as attachments? In spite of using a virus scanner, I've lost my system several times in the last few months, and it's getting to be a serious problem. KAY --- Kay Keating's outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 12/4/2001

Hi everyone. Thanks for all the info that has been flowing. This site may provide the answer to pic storage and thumbnails and it's Freeware! http://www.theabsolute.net/sware/index.html#clnsys Look for LISTPICS v2.0 Creates an HTML file to display your collection of graphic files. Lots of useful other stuff there John Parker in Ayrshire, Scotland Researching LAWRENCE - Canterbury - from c1812, Wandsworth, Battersea HUELIN - Jersey & London from 1800 PARKER - Forest Gate, London and Rochford, Essex from 1880 BURNS - Glasgow (Lanarkshire) & Ayrshire from 1840 Family Tree at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~parhuelaw --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 04/12/01

Takes about two years to learn scanning and image management, setting aside most other projects. After two years a person might want better quality images (because their storage method has improved) or they might decide on a "practical" size for organization of the available number of images. One copy of each picture isn't enough. Multiple copies in multiple locations (progressively organized backup sets) is better. CD-Recordables are affordable but occasionally scratched. A hard drive can't be considered "permanent." At one time I had over 25,000 JPG images and hundreds of others in various formats on a single hard drive. Use some of the pictures in the intended way. If you can "see" the difference, perhaps it is worth saving large files of special originals. If you need to be able to print a *collection* of pictures in a word processor file or genealogy scrapbook or album program, use the smallest files with acceptable quality. None of my Internet contacts have reported using a Word 2000 file with more than 50 images as part of a family book, yet I'm reasonably happy with family data files that will print 500 and 750 small images (early scans) organized in scrapbooks from single genealogy files. A single scan of a microfilm printed recently from 61 mb file was well over the size of the 500 & 750 picture sets that are around 45 mb each. All it proved was that the computer equipment could print a big file one page at a time. I gave up worrying about dpi calculations about 1997 and "just do it." Documents received yesterday will be scanned to 600 pixels wide and e-mailed to a cousin in England. The quality settings for JPG and variations for TIF (uncompressed, LZW etc) are hidden in Adobe image programs compared to other products that have an Options button in the "save copy as" window. A JPG doesn't change each time it is viewed, just when edited and resaved. Do Photoshop full version, LE, Essentials (etc) allow multiple copies of images to be viewed for comparisons? The person who talked about images at a November meeting used ACDSee to display them even though he has a full copy of Photoshop and took an expensive course to learn it. A new compact version of JPG is in development. PNG is hardly discussed on the Internet and unlikely to become "standard." Pictures sent as e-mail attachments need to be 600 pixels or less if the recipient doesn't know how to manage printouts from large files. PSD (Photoshop) and PSP (Paint Shop Pro) image formats are used for editing images, not sharing with owners of other image products. Personally, I find it easiest to work with pixels displayed rather than dpi or inches. A full page item or 35mm slide can be printed from an image 600 pixels wide and 900 pixels high. If it has interesting details, I scan "closeup" sections in preference to keeping a huge TIF file and cropping later. I remember when a photographer friend brought a portrait to be scanned and took home a 1.2 mb JPG copy on a floppy. He couldn't print it with his expensive new computer and had to come back to a 486 that was fast and powerful at the time. Elizabeth (with a minimum of frustration over images) ----- Original Message ----- > I started saving files in the .TIF format (too big to transfer before I > could burn CDs) so changed to .JPG (didn't know that there is loss EVERY > time it is saved, not just the first time) then .PNG (now I find that > some/many image programs don't recognize this format > I have spent a fair amount of money and a lot of time on this project so far > with little to show for it but a lot of frustration so any and all > instructive messages to the list will be read closely. > Dennis Smith

Hello List, I would like to first mention that I really like this list. I have been carefully reading all of the postings and have learned a lot already. In addition to reading the posts on this list, I have bought and studied several books on the subject of scanning and have searched the web for information relative to proper scanning resolution. Either this subject is extremely difficult or I am extremely dense (probably the latter) but I still don't feel confident that I know how to do what I want to do. Like several others, my interest is in scanning old family photographs, negatives and slides and archiving them for future use. I want to compile specific collections on CDs and share them with relatives. I also want to be able to print some copies for handouts at reunions and possibly prepare booklets to give away. I have hundreds/thousands (haven't counted them) of my own items but am mostly concerned about copying the collections of older relatives. I may never see those items again and want to scan them with such quality that I won't ever need to see the original again. At this time I have no plans to post on web sites but some will be e-mailed. I have the following hardware: Self built P/Cs with enough horsepower to handle the applications 70GB of HDD space to start with HP 7400C Scanner2400 X 2400 (optical) resolution with transparency adapter and using SCSI interface HP 9510i CD-RW Lexmark Optra R+ Laser Printer with 1200dpi Photo capability As I understand it, If I want to scan an 8X10 B&W and print it at 8X10 then I should scan at 300dpi. To allow someone at some future date to print an enlargement then I would need to scan at a higher resolution now. The HP user guide says that if a the photo will be printed at a larger size then it should be scanned at the larger size rather than at a higher resolution. How does this work. What is the scanner actually doing differently when scanning to a larger output size vs. a straight scan? Example: A cousin has a small collection of 2 1/4" X 3" photographs that his father took in the South Pacific in WW-II. They contain a lot of sharp detail. Should I scan them at an output size of 8X10 300dpi or actual size at 1200dpi or 5X7 at 1200 or ??. The books say that scanning resolution depends on how the item is to be printed and proceed to give examples based on printer capabilities that were common two or three years ago. I want to try to be prepared for what may become available in the future. However there is a financial limitation. :-( I can't afford a commercial quality drum scanner and a commercial quality film scanner, etc. I chose the flatbed with transparency adapter because most film scanners are 35MM and a lot of my old negatives were from box cameras of the 1920s/30s. I thought that the large negative size combined with scanning resolutions of up to 2400 X 2400 would cover my needs. Perhaps I should have consulted the list before I bought. Another aspect of the problem. When I scan a picture at a higher resolution then display it in an editing program it is either displayed a lot bigger than the screen or the size is shown to be, for example, 10% of the image size. Must I save a copy sized to the screen at 72dpi in order for it to be easily displayed? I started saving files in the .TIF format (too big to transfer before I could burn CDs) so changed to .JPG (didn't know that there is loss EVERY time it is saved, not just the first time) then .PNG (now I find that some/many image programs don't recognize this format but it may, someday, be the standard.) The suggestions on the list to save in multiple formats is definitely the way to go. Wish I had thought of that. Is the collective wisdom to use .TIF & .JPG or is .PNG & .JPG OK? I have PhotoShop but have never really used it very much. Would .PSD & .JPG be the best combo? Note #1: In past years, I had several old photos commercially copied. Verified that good quality is expensive - Inexpensive copies aren't very good. You get what you pay for and I can't afford good except in very special cases. Sometimes expensive wasn't very good either. Note #2: I bought a copy stand and a good macro lens for copying old photos. It is fairly expensive to have labs do the processing and far too time consuming for me to do my own darkroom work. The quality was not what I wanted either. For handling a lot of pictures it just didn't seem to be the way to go. Note #3: In 1994 I bought the then new HP IICx Scanner ($1,000.00+) 300 X 300 dpi resolution. I scanned a good many pictures with it but I wasn't getting the quality that I wanted so I quit using it. It was fine for scanning and printing a sharp 8X10 original and I didn't understand then that scanning a 2 1/4" X 3" original at 300dpi and printing it at 2X or larger just wasn't ever going to work very well. Now I don't know if I will ever be able to get another chance to copy some of those prints. I have spent a fair amount of money and a lot of time on this project so far with little to show for it but a lot of frustration so any and all instructive messages to the list will be read closely. I have lots more questions but will cut it off here for now. Thank You, Dennis Smith

"Enhanced Resolution" is marketing hype. The optical scan (what the scanner *really* does) is 600 by 600. The software then interpolates those dots, ie guesses what should be in between them. You can imagine how good a computer is at guessing things. Ignore the wonderful numbers -- you have a 600 by 600 dpi scanner. Now, here's how I'd calculate the ideal scan level. Don't know that it's the right way but it makes sense and so far no one has faulted it. You want pics about three times the size of the original (you want 4 by 6 from 1.5 by 2 -- 6 divided by 2 = 3). To get a good photo you want to scan at 300 dpi or more (for excellent pics I say a lot more -- say 600 dpi). In order to expand your original threefold and still end up with 300 dpi, you must scan the original at 900 dpi. An explanation. When you scan 2 inches at 900 dpi, you end up with 1800 dots. That's all that's there. There ain't no more. So, when you expand that to 6 inches, you still have only 1800 dots spread over the 6 inches. That's 300 dpi, your minimum level for a good pic. In other words your scanner can't do the job. It can give you enough to double the 1.5 by 2 pic to a 3 by 4. It can take your larger 2 by 3's and double them to 4 by 6. But scanning your little pics at the best your scanner can do and then printing at 4 by 6 results in a 200 dpi print. But let your eyes be your judge. If you are happy with the result of a 200 dpi print, then carry on. You'll probably get as good a result as the average snapshot. Well, the average of the snapshots that I take anyway. Date forwarded: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:28:33 -0700 Send reply to: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> From: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> Date sent: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:27:05 -0500 Subject: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Scanning / Printing dpi? To: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > I want to second Colin Chambers comment, "Boy this is a great list. I > have only been subscribed for a short while so far and have already > picked up some great tips." These lengthy replies require a lot of > time and thought and I for one greatly appreciate the efforts. > Everyone who has replied to my initial email has given me useful > information, and I want to thank all. > > I'm beginning to grasp some of the finer points, but I'm still a bit > uncertain of others. I don't have the thousands of photos that some > of you have said you are working on, but for the few hundred I do have > I'd like to say I did the best I could on preserving them for future > generations. > > I'm saving two sets of files one in uncompressed *.tif and the other > compressed in *.jpg. According to what I've learned here I have been > over-scanning by way too much. My initial idea was that I wanted to > make sure that I saved as much data as possible for the future ... > when monitors, ink and printers will undoubtedly be much inproved. > > Most of the photos I'm scanning are about 1.5" x 2" and 2" x 3" . I > want to print them at 4"x6". My new Xerox WorkCenter > Fax/Printer/Scanner/Copier manual says it prints at 2400 x 1200 dpi. > It says the scanner scans at 600 x 600 dpi or up to 4800 x 4800 > resolution enhanced ... can someone explain "enhanced resolution"? > > Can someone please tell me what is the minimum dpi that I should be > scanning at with this printer and scanner to get the best possible > print now? Then at what point am I wasting computer disk space when > I overscan ... with the future in mind ... is 1200 too much, not > enough, etc.? > > Again many thanks, > Kay in Maryland > > > > > > > > --- > Kay Keating's outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 12/4/2001 > > > ==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== > Checkout the other lists being watched over by your List Mom; > http://mailing_lists.homestead.com/lists.html > To learn more about my world visit http://dwp.bigplanet.com/kburnett > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

I want to second Colin Chambers comment, "Boy this is a great list. I have only been subscribed for a short while so far and have already picked up some great tips." These lengthy replies require a lot of time and thought and I for one greatly appreciate the efforts. Everyone who has replied to my initial email has given me useful information, and I want to thank all. I'm beginning to grasp some of the finer points, but I'm still a bit uncertain of others. I don't have the thousands of photos that some of you have said you are working on, but for the few hundred I do have I'd like to say I did the best I could on preserving them for future generations. I'm saving two sets of files one in uncompressed *.tif and the other compressed in *.jpg. According to what I've learned here I have been over-scanning by way too much. My initial idea was that I wanted to make sure that I saved as much data as possible for the future ... when monitors, ink and printers will undoubtedly be much inproved. Most of the photos I'm scanning are about 1.5" x 2" and 2" x 3" . I want to print them at 4"x6". My new Xerox WorkCenter Fax/Printer/Scanner/Copier manual says it prints at 2400 x 1200 dpi. It says the scanner scans at 600 x 600 dpi or up to 4800 x 4800 resolution enhanced ... can someone explain "enhanced resolution"? Can someone please tell me what is the minimum dpi that I should be scanning at with this printer and scanner to get the best possible print now? Then at what point am I wasting computer disk space when I overscan ... with the future in mind ... is 1200 too much, not enough, etc.? Again many thanks, Kay in Maryland --- Kay Keating's outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 12/4/2001

Hi All, I thought I would just add a little to the scanner debate with some words of wisdom from Adobe. " Use an image resolution that is proportional to but not the same as the printer resolution. e.g.; with an output printer resolution of 300 to 600 dpi ( dots per inch ) good image resolutions would be 72 to 150 ppi. While high quality imagesetters can print at 1200dpi and higher so image resolutions of 200 to 300 dpi will produce good results. When screen printing is the final output an image resolution of 1.5 to 2 times the screen frequency usually gives the best results. Halftone screen sizes: Screen Lines/inch x 1.5 x 2 Coarse 65 lpi 98 130 Average 85 lpi 128 170 High-quality screen 133 lpi 200 266 Very fine screen 177 lpi 266 354 Note: Some imagesetters and 600 dpi laser printers use non-halftone screening methods. In such a case the service provider should be contacted or printer documentation should be consulted about the ideal image resolution to use." So I guess if you are planning to have your photographs printed professionally, in a book or what ever, then the best thing you can do is to get your printer into the planning stage and let him tell you what will work best on his equipment. The next best thing though would be to scan at a higher resolution than you think you may need and then reduce it later if you need to. Boy this is a great list. I have only been subscribed for a short while so far and have already picked up some great tips. Merry Christmas and TTFN Colin ;o) ATTWOOD, Kent, 1879+; BALDWIN, Middlesex, 1855+; BALDWIN, Norfolk, pre1875; BLUNKELL, Middlesex, c1840; BRAUNSTON Kent, 1870+; BROOKWELL, Bethnal Green, c1840-c1950; CHAMBERS, Kent, 1847+; KNOWLES, Lincolnshire, c1840-c1860; KNOWLES, Middlesex/Essex, c1860+; KONDZIALKI, Middlesex/Essex, c1881+; KONDZIALKI, Poland, c1840-c1888; OVER, Kent, 1817+; PLUM, Kent, c1880+.

A few general points about what resolution to scan at:- 1. The end purpose is one deciding factor. As one correspondent said if an image is only going to be printed at n dpi then ostensibly it is not worth storing at a higher density. However, what if one gets a better printer later on? Maybe better be prepared and scan/store at a higher resolution from the beginning rather than re-scan. 2. If one is 'archiving' for preservation, i.e. making a digital copy that could be considered to be an equal to the original then the resolution must be at least equal to the original. That is not always easy to ascertain as there is not an exact digital resoltuion equvalent for any analogue format but some can be estimated by calculation. For example, if we say modern colour film resolves at 150 lines per millimetre (lpm) and to allow for dye cluster edges one needs to scan at least at double that resolution then we need to scan at something like a minimum of 7,600 dots per inch. 3. Why not scan multiple resolutions? One written away to CD-R as an archival copy with perhaps a duplicate kept physically separate and a lower res working copy kept on-line. Perhaps also a thumbnail version? (The thumbnail requirement may go away as we move to JPEG-2000). 4. Put the scanning details along with the other metadata regardless of what program you are using to keep the catalogue. You may one day want to do a search for all images canned at less than a certain resolution in order to re-scan them on newer better equipment. I work with digital archives for stills, audio, television and film and most of these rules apply to all these types of digital object. A modern concert hall recording may be made at 192 kHz with 24 or 32 bits but it is not worth using that level of quality to make a copy of a wax cylinder! Tom.

Some scanners "look" sturdy compared to others. Some have lift-off lids so oversize items like maps/documents/books can be scanned in sections. Some have parallel connection, USB or both. Look for the area that can be scanned (perhaps 11 inches) not just the length of the glass. Software supplied with scanners is highly variable and recommended retail products may cost more than the scanner itself. I've always used Paint Shop Pro for editing images even when various scanners required specific software to get the original scanned image on screen. Started scanning documents with a page scanner purchased in mid 1996 before the price of flatbeds became reasonable. Ask someone in your area who uses a scanner for family history projects -- one name brand scanner seems to require the program CD in the drive when it is used but other models from the same company do not. Store staff are not likely to know about scanners except which ones are returned to the store. The order of loading software and connecting equipment has changed with newer USB models compared to the kind that required SCSI cards installed inside computers. I use a lightweight parallel port scanner for demonstrations at computer group meetings. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- I am looking for a good inexpensive scanner ($100) range that I can use to scan microfilmed documents and photos that I can attach to my genealogy software for each individual (JPGs). I looked around and there are SO MANY scanners in the $100 range. I was wondering if anyone could give me some tips on what to look for. - Raquel

Here is a link to a web site that I think will help several that are having trouble with what settings to use for a good print of a scan. Hope this helps someone. http://home.att.net/~cthames/ <A HREF="http://home.att.net/~cthames/">Scanning for Beginners or Basic Scanning Techniques</A> Join Now! Subscribe: KYHeritageFolklore-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Terry Thacker I look at doing genealogy as writing OUR own family Bible. Our ancestors are the things that have came to pass, and our descendants are the ones to fulfill it.