I have just about had it with my feed scanner (Multipass C5000). It sounded like such a good idea 5 yrs ago when I bought it..now I think the scanner is trash! I haven't scanned any older photos (afraid of the feed tray) and the newer ones I have scanned have lines from the rollers I believe. 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. Thanks. Raquel

Kay - QImage really does make a difference. You can download a 30 day free trial at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ If you decide that the software is worthwhile - it only costs $35 to register it. As far as we can tell - you get free upgrades forever - we started at version 1.something - and it's currently at version 4.2 and have been able to download the upgrades and run them. Bill has just put up the section on resolution on his website - it's lesson 7. I think it will help address some of the questions you originally asked. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wflawrence/index.htm Hope this helps Patty Keating Kay wrote: > Patty, > Thanks for sending me the address for your husband's website. I found it > very useful; I'll watch for his next lesson. Tell me more about Qimage. > I've had others recomment QImage for printing ... does it really make a > noticeable difference in printing? Paint Shop Pro 7 allows printing > multi-prints per page so I don't need another program for that. Does QImage > make a difference in the quality or sharpness of the print? > Kay

Agreed, but in the more general sense that your pics will only be as good as your weakest link. Now, if you don't *have* a weakest link (I have a 1200 dpi scanner and a 1400 dpi printer, neither of which is very expensive and both of which are very good) and you want to produce a very high quality print, what settings do you use? Echoing someone else's point, when talking of dpi, it is only the optical numbers that count, not the interpolation ones. Beware of sales hype!! Date forwarded: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:57:54 -0700 From: TheHobbyBarn@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 01:57:51 EST Subject: Re: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Methods for scanning and storing photos. To: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com Send reply to: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > Just wanted to put my 2¢ in on this topic. > What I have failed to see anyone point out so far is, that it don't > really matter what dpi you scan a photo at, when you goto print it out > it will only be at the dpi your printer is able to print at. For > example, you can scan a photo at 1200 dpi, if your printer will only > print at 300 dpi then that is all you are going to get out of that > photo. Your quality of a photo is in your printer not your scanner. > Now, this only pertains to if your printing the photo not storing it > on disk to view on screen or web site. > > 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. > > > ==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== > List problems? Contact the Vintage-Photos -List Mom > kathleenburnett@earthlink.net Use Kathleen as the subject line for > your post To learn more about my world visit > http://dwp.bigplanet.com/kburnett > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 >

Any method of organizing pictures seems okay for the first hundred. Some people realize their first method isn't working by 500 pictures, some get to 2000 and have to start over. Keep a simple method so that a collection can be copied and divided if necessary. Use some of the scans or copies of pictures in the intended way to see if the method is working. For example, how fast can you copy 200 or more pictures for Cousin A's relatives in a useful size under 600 pixels and mail her a CD-Recordable? She doesn't own software to resize pictures from 30 MB archival copies. My suggestions are based on organization for genealogy software scrapbooks with one to six images per page, most often 2x2 layout with captions. One data file of reasonable size for each branch of the family, or topic or set of digital camera pictures and uncompressed copies of pictures in Windows sub-folders. Recommendations for archival scans and archival storage found on Internet web sites are too costly for a person who has inherited thousands of family pictures and other keepsakes. Elizabeth

Much thanks to Mary, Elizabeth and Phyllis for their valuable information. I am already busy trying out the two software programs, and Elizabeth's tips regarding general organizing issues were also extremely helpful. Again thanks for your help! Irene

Just wanted to put my 2¢ in on this topic. What I have failed to see anyone point out so far is, that it don't really matter what dpi you scan a photo at, when you goto print it out it will only be at the dpi your printer is able to print at. For example, you can scan a photo at 1200 dpi, if your printer will only print at 300 dpi then that is all you are going to get out of that photo. Your quality of a photo is in your printer not your scanner. Now, this only pertains to if your printing the photo not storing it on disk to view on screen or web site. 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.

At 10:19 PM 12/7/01 -0700, you wrote: >Microtek 5700 flatbed has a good negative scanner (up to 4x5) lid that lifts >off, FireWire or USB connection, also good for roll of microfilm. >Elizabeth > >----- Original Message ----- > > I'm also looking for a dedicated slide scanner that will also do negatives > > up to 3"x4" and not cost three mortgage payments. I do like the size capability of this Microtek and will check it out. Should also have said I don't have a SCSI card and don't really want to replace my flat bed just yet as it works well with everything but transparencies (sales weasel lie / ignorance led to choice of current machine instead of one step up with adaptor). I've also heard that flat beds with adaptors don't really do a good job. Comments? Linda

At 10:04 PM 12/7/01 -0500, you wrote: >opinions. I have had recognized experts disagree on basic issues, >for example on the question of what dpi to scan archive copies. >One told me that it was pointless to do anything less than 2400 >dpi, another told me I was wasting resources if I went over 200 dpi. >Personally I think they are both wrong. At this point my expert >opinion is my own eyes. I'm redoing a whole project of 500+ images with three objectives in mind: 1. To provide relatives with a CD of the photos that are mostly B&W and go back between 50 and 120 years so they can be viewed on a computer. Because the photos range in size mostly from 1"x2" to 2"x3" and up to 6"x8", I will use a variety of settings from about 100-300 dpi. I will also enlarge some details of photos for "head & shoulder" images to use in printing family trees. These will have to be done probably 600 dpi if they are really small segments of a photo. My current scanner will do a maximum of 600 dpi. 2. The CDs will have a second scan of each image that can be printed by a photo developer on regular photographic paper. I had scanned at about 300 dpi, but have now been told (by Japan Photo) that I should scan them as high as I possibly can. Of course, that means a true scan and not one that is beefed up by software pixillation (filling in the gaps with dots of colour of the area around it, ending up with a fuzzy image). 3. There may even be a third scan of each image that can be printed at home on a good computer printer, with or without special inks and papers and produce a clear picture that is not muddy. The settings here depend on the capability of a printer. I'm still running an old Canon BJ 210, and finally figured out it is my weak link, so have put a new one on my Christmas list! Without figuring in the cost of acquiring a new printer, printing at home, even with special papers and inks appears to be a cheaper alternative to mass printing from CD to photographic paper in a photo store. I agree that one's eyes have to be the judge, and it is trial and error all down the line. Somewhere, I saw a formula to calculate the best starting point for setting dpi based on the size of the original and the desired size of the scan, but lost the link and hadn't quite figured it out anyway. I'm also looking for a dedicated slide scanner that will also do negatives up to 3"x4" and not cost three mortgage payments. Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

Microtek 5700 has a medium size transparent media adaptor built into the lid. The next stage up is a full page size TMA lid. I don't know of any specific film/negative scanners between 35mm (or APS) and this 4x5. Another company advertises a flatbed - negative scanner that uses a slower parallel port connection or USB. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- > Should also have said I don't have a SCSI card and don't really want to > replace my flat bed just yet as it works well with everything but > transparencies (sales weasel lie / ignorance led to choice of current > machine instead of one step up with adaptor). I've also heard that flat > beds with adaptors don't really do a good job. > Linda

Microtek 5700 flatbed has a good negative scanner (up to 4x5) lid that lifts off, FireWire or USB connection, also good for roll of microfilm. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- > I'm also looking for a dedicated slide scanner that will also do negatives > up to 3"x4" and not cost three mortgage payments. > Linda

Again the caveat: I'm a user not an expert. If you are scanning a pic just to put it on a monitor (eg over the web) then increasing dpi merely results in a larger image, not a better one. Quality is not under your control, it will range from 60 to 100 pixels per inch depending on your monitor. All you have to do is scan at the level of the monitor, so 100 dpi is good for any monitor. If you are scanning in order to print, then size and quality are both under your control, but are still related. You can set the size and then the quality of the print is a function of that size and the quality of the original scan. If you scan a 2 by 3 inch pic at 600 dpi (ie 600 by 600 dpi) and then print it at size 4 by 6, the best you can get is 300 dpi (ie 300 by 300 dpi). So what is the acceptable level for a print? Generally you hear 300 dpi. I'm not so sure. The typical ink-jet prints at 360 dpi. Print a capital A in a large font (say 24 point) and then look at it. With the naked eye you can see the jaggedness. I know that a photo is not the same as a printed letter, but I still say that my uneducated eye can see fuzziness and jaggedness at 360 dpi. That's what I meant by "over-scanning" -- going beyond what many people claim is needed. I go for 600 dpi because my eyes cannot tell the difference between a 600 and a 1200 pic even when they are side by side. BTW, I'm told that quality magazines are printing at the equivalent to 1200 dpi. Remember that's 600 dpi on the final print. For your 2 by 3 that will be printed at 4 by 6, you should scan at 1200 dpi. But use your own eyes to check. Scan the same pic at 1200 and at 3000 and then print each the same size. Look at it. Use a magnifying glass. If you can't see a difference then save some real estate on your hard drive and scan at the lower dpi. Now I can give you one *big* improvement in your pics. Use photo paper and set your printer for that type of paper. The difference is astounding. Again I hope some professionals are in this group and voice their opinions. I have had recognized experts disagree on basic issues, for example on the question of what dpi to scan archive copies. One told me that it was pointless to do anything less than 2400 dpi, another told me I was wasting resources if I went over 200 dpi. Personally I think they are both wrong. At this point my expert opinion is my own eyes. Date forwarded: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:36:20 -0700 Send reply to: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> From: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> Date sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:34:45 -0500 Subject: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Methods for scanning and storing photos. To: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > Dear "Fraser Dunford" <fraser.dunford@sympatico.ca> > > Thanks for your reply to my query. Your observations are very > helpful. What do you mean by "...over-scan, ie go higher than the 300 > dpi". Just how much do you over-scan. Many of the photos I'm working > with are quite small ... 2"x3" or so. I've been scanning at 3000 dpi > ... am I over doing it? I then resize to 4"x6" for final storage and > printing. My results are acceptable although a bit more fuzzy than > the original. This may be because I'm not printing to photo paper, > but just acid-free 65# stock. Am I wrong in thinking that the higher > you scan the more data is available for enlarging? > > I also started scanning using *.bmp format, but after reading a dozen > times or so that the *.tif format was considered better, I switchedto > *.tif . I resize all photos to 72dpi and save as a high quality *.jpg > for email and webpages. > > At this time, I'm scanning all my photos in greyscale. The few old > faded color photos that I have look pretty good in greyscale. I'll > have to re-evaluate this as I begin to process my more recent photos. > > Photographing photographs is not the perfect solution, but may be the > only option in some cases. I was in Ireland last year with only a > handheld camera and found several photos I wanted. The results were > so so. This was the first time I had done this; next time I will take > the photos outside for better light. > > I've had pretty good results with photographing microfilmed documents > ... old church records, etc. for archive purposes. Actually, you can > improve the readability of the document. > > Thanks again, Kay > > =========================================== > From: Fraser Dunford: > > I'll get in on this, not as an expert, but as a user like Kay. > I've > been asking these questions for years and, guess what, there > aren't any answers to them! There is however a dominant opinion, > which may change next year or even next week. > I am working with a lot (thousands) of photos and photographers' > marks. My concern is to archive the photos and provide highest > quality prints of the marks. My philosophy is to produce a very high > quality scan because future technology may be able to make use of it. > So I over-scan, ie go higher than the 300 dpi needed by current > quality ink-jet printers. This approach will not be sensible to > someone who is scanning just to put the pics on a website. > I used .bmp and got a lot of disagreement about it from > professionals. Apparently .bmp is not too "flexible". .tif is the > preferred format. .jpg is best for anything that will show only on > screen. A good .jpg at 100 dpi filling about 1/4 of the screen takes > only about 10K so they load quickly and store efficiently. A 600 dpi > .tif measuring 5 by 7 can chew up 50Meg of real estate. > How you enlarge depends on whether you are printing or > showing on screen. The best description I know of all this is at > www.scantips.com. > The only good way of storing originals is in archival quality > envelopes. Particularly colour pics. Significant also for snapshots. > Pre 1880 pics seem to be standing up to all sorts of mistreatment but > I'd still treat them carefully. Control the humidity as much as > possible. > I've talked with many people who swear by photographs of their > photos (essentially "copy negatives"). I've never seen one done by a > non-professional that I would bother with. That should bring howls of > protest from many readers!!!! The point is that it takes a special > stand, special lighting, and (I think) special film to do properly. > That said, I'd rather have a not-so-great copy neg of that one photo > of Great Aunt Minnie than nothing at all. For my work I carry a > laptop computer and a serious 1200 dpi flatbed scanner. Digital > cameras are still not at a detail level that suits me. When they get > 6 Meg of pixels I'll get interested. A 4 Meg camera could work with > small pics such as cv's provided it has a very good lens. > Storage? CD's, which have a shelf life of about 20 years. (It's > the commercially made ones that can last 100 years, not the home made > ones.) Anything magnetic has a reliable life of only a couple of > years. Even magnetic tape has to be re-spooled every year or two. > I'm not happy with Zip drive reliability and so don't use them. > There. I'm sure every one of you has found something above to > disagree with, and if you voice your opinions we will all become > wiser. > > Date forwarded: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:56:45 -0700 > Send reply to: "Keating Kay" > <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> > From: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> > Date sent: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:55:09 -0500 > Subject: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Saving old photos ..... > To: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > Forwarded by: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > > > Morning, > > > > I'm new to this list, and I'm hoping that others on the list are > > interested in scanning their old photos in order to share and > > preserve them. I'm currently scanning the pictures in my parent's > > photo albums (ca 1920). Many are brittle, faded, yellow, and torn. > > I'd like to exchange ideas on the optimum settings for scanning in > > order to restore. I use Paint Shop Pro 7 for working with the > > photos. I apologize if these questions have been answered in the > > past. If so, could someone point me to where I can read old > > messages. > > > > (1) I'd like to know what is considered the best format in which to > > save these files for long term storage; I'm presently using *.tif > > for archive purposes and *.jpg for using the photo in genealogy > > programs. > > I've read many like the *.bmp format better, and I've read that > > there > > is another newer format. > > > > (2) I'm experimenting with the histogram function and would like > > some specific help on the mid range slider; what is the purpose of > > it? After adjusting the histogram, do you then use the "contrast & > > brightness" feature? > > > > (3) How do you enlarge a small photo? I'm presently scanning at > > 1400+ dpi and then enlarging the size of the original photo. Is > > there a better way? > > > > (4) What do you do with your original photos after scanning them > > into archive files? The books my photos are in have that old black > > paper that is now breaking up. Many of the photos were 'glued' into > > the book, so there is a photo on both sides of the black paper. > > > > (5) When a scanner is not available, I've copied old photos in > > other family member's album with my camera with mixed results. Any > > thoughts on this method of obtaining photos from other people? > > > > (6) Finally, What storage media is considered best? CD disk, Zip > > drive, etc.? > > > > 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: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001 > > > ==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will > be grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net 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 am looking for information on how other users are organizing their pictures using computer software." Irene -- I use my software primarily for storing family photos. If you intend to use yours for the same, you may be interested in the software I use: Digital Photo Librarian. It is obvious that the software is based on Lotus or Excel because the layout is very similar. I love Excel, so I fell in love with this software. I like photo organizing software that provides a lot of space for additional text and good search and sort capabilities. The screen has columns (l to r): Picture (thumbnail), Date, Persons, Events, Locations, Notes, File Name. (All photos can be in one large file and you can just scroll down the page to see all your photos. Or you could set up separate files for each family name. I prefer to have all family photos in one file. If my file gets too large, I may divide it into separate files by century or decade.) I can "hide" any column I do not want to appear on the screen. And I can do select sorts. I can pull up all the pictures from one location, or one year, or one family. I can print out thumbnails with whichever text columns I select. I use the notes column for a unique identifier number for each picture that includes a negative number. The software has limited photo editing capabilities -- you can crop, rotate and do some other modest manipulation. I don't really understand what you mean by your need for a wide range of formats. But I'm sure the software meets all your other needs. I also use my software for other image storage needs. I have a separate file for family photos, one for pictures of friends, one for pictures of my antiques & collectibles, one for pictures of pets, one for scans of genealogy related documents. My daughter is a quilter and takes a lot of pictures at quilt shows. She uses the program to store quilt images. She can do sorts by types of quilt, quilt show, etc. My other daughter uses the software to store decorating and design ideas. I'm sure other subscribers to this list will give you insight on other programs. Good luck..... Phyllis in NJ

ACDSee4.0. Wonderful! http://www.acdsystems.com/English/Products/ImagingProducts/ACDSee/ACDSee/ind ex.htm mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irene Peters" <iupgen@mindspring.com> To: <VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:01 AM Subject: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Looking for Photo Organizing Software > I am looking for information on how other users are organizing their > pictures using computer software. I browsed the mailing list archives, but > wasn't able to find anything there. Here is what I am looking for in > particular: > > - Software that stores scanned images and allows for keywords and other > organizational identifiers. > - Good, quick search function to retrieve pictures. > - Capability for a wide range of formats. Up to now I have been using mainly > PaperPort Deluxe, which has a proprietary format in which it stores > docs/pics - .max format. Most photo-organizing software is not capable of > displaying this format, it seems. > - I would ultimately like to print out sheets of thumbnails with the main > identifier (file name or ID-number) listed. > > I'd be interested to learn which programs others are using, and hear of > their experiences with their respective software programs. Also concerning > issues that I have not listed above. Thanks much in advance! > > Irene > > > > > ==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political > announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, > etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. > Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > To learn more about my world visit http://dwp.bigplanet.com/kburnett > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 > >

I've used medium-long file names for images since March 1996 with 32 bit versions Paint Shop Pro and organized images in simple Windows folders. No expensive and time-consuming database software or numbering system required for over 15,000 images. There are additional considerations if pictures are scanned for linking to a genealogy data file. Each scanning session has thumbnails printed by PSP for use as a worksheet. Tried a dozen or more image organizing and image editing products recommended by others and all were lacking some essential features or too slow to use by comparison with PSP. Some scanners require specific software to run but I still use PSP to save the images. Best results with multiple scans of the same picture to show details and faces rather than one large scan cropped later. The only change after nearly six years of working with images has been from 240 pixels high default JPG setting backed up to floppies to 480 pixels best quality JPG backed up to CD-Recordables. Portraits for box charts have always been saved as ovals with a minimum of distracting background. Date first keeps a set of images in logical order in each folder just like Grandpa kept his 35mm slides in order in a tray in the 1950s. Image files must be backed up OFF the hard drive in progressive, organized sets. One copy of each image on a single hard drive or CD-RW is at risk. Most images are saved ready-to-use as standard JPG, though the occasional archival size TIF image is printed for display at meetings about scanning. A 61 mb double page pedigree scanned from a 35mm microfilm didn't look that much sharper than the 777 kb version. Scrapbooks in Family Tree Maker have detailed captions telling the life story of each person or topic with growing collections of images sorted by date. Digital camera photos (900 kb JPG) are usually printed from FTM scrapbooks with captions or directly from PSP without captions. FTM with inserted images allows family files to be split, keeping all of the pictures for the individals and marriages in a branch. Elizabeth, FTM 9 (Oct 30) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irene Peters" > I am looking for information on how other users are organizing their > pictures using computer software.

I am looking for information on how other users are organizing their pictures using computer software. I browsed the mailing list archives, but wasn't able to find anything there. Here is what I am looking for in particular: - Software that stores scanned images and allows for keywords and other organizational identifiers. - Good, quick search function to retrieve pictures. - Capability for a wide range of formats. Up to now I have been using mainly PaperPort Deluxe, which has a proprietary format in which it stores docs/pics - .max format. Most photo-organizing software is not capable of displaying this format, it seems. - I would ultimately like to print out sheets of thumbnails with the main identifier (file name or ID-number) listed. I'd be interested to learn which programs others are using, and hear of their experiences with their respective software programs. Also concerning issues that I have not listed above. Thanks much in advance! Irene

Just to add another thought to your old photo. I have done some costume research for our local little theatre. These are all costumes. Northern European with a little gypsy added in. You can see the stage curtain in the right background. Front left has a woman in an archers outfit, some are dressed as domestics, third row center has two young women as men with fake mustaches. The hats, fabrics, the tulle all suggest 1890's or a little earlier. If you could close in on the doll and get a larger scan of her the doll museums or their many books and catalogs would probably be the best way to close in on a date. The costumes could easily be 20 years older than the photo. It is a wonderful photo. Do you know it's history?? How did it get to you? So many clues---- look at shoes. The woman 2nd row left has a open type shoe . If this was street wear you could date it but costumes are a totally different matter. This is a real fascinating photo. )Please email me as you find out more. I love to add to my lore of old costumes. Connie http://www.Q-MAIL.COM $4.95/mo Internet Access Broad Band Wireless Access http://www.goesfast.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.pulse.net We do it all ! Web Hosting - Broad Band Wireless - Online Communities P.O. Box 836603 Richardson, Texas 75083 (972) 470-0411 / (903) 454-1133 / (817) 315-0005 ------------------------------------------------------

Patty, Thanks for sending me the address for your husband's website. I found it very useful; I'll watch for his next lesson. Tell me more about Qimage. I've had others recomment QImage for printing ... does it really make a noticeable difference in printing? Paint Shop Pro 7 allows printing multi-prints per page so I don't need another program for that. Does QImage make a difference in the quality or sharpness of the print? Kay ===================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: Patty Hankins To: Keating Kay Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Saving old photos ..... Kay - My husband Bill has a website talking about he scans/restores the images from some of our old photos. It's called the Virtual Vintage Image - and it's at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wflawrence/index.htm I think it may help answer some of your questions. (1) I'd like to know what is considered the best format in which to save these files for long term storage; I'm presently using *.tif for archive purposes and *.jpg for using the photo in genealogy programs. I've read many like the *.bmp format better, and I've read that there is another newer format. We also archive in .tif - and use compressed jpg files for the website. (3) How do you enlarge a small photo? I'm presently scanning at 1400+ dpi and then enlarging the size of the original photo. Is there a better way? Bill is currently working on the next section of his website - looking at scanning at different dpi's. We usually scan between 300-600dpi - and then use QueImage for printing. It has some really good pixel interpolation algorhythms for enlarging/printing. (4) What do you do with your original photos after scanning them into archive files? The books my photos are in have that old black paper that is now breaking up. Many of the photos were 'glued' into the book, so there is a photo on both sides of the black paper. I put them in acid free folders/sheets - depending on the state of the pages. We've got several albums from about 1915-1925 - that sound similar - black paper - and lots of glue. Don't try to take the photos off the paper - there's too much chance of damaging the photos. I get my archival supplies from Light Impressions -they're at http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/servlet/OnlineShopping (5) When a scanner is not available, I've copied old photos in other family member's album with my camera with mixed results. Any thoughts on this method of obtaining photos from other people? We use a photo copy stand for stuff we can't scan. If I'm away from home - I'll put the photo flat - side lit - and take multiple shots with a digital camera on a tripod. Basically trying to recreate the photo stand conditions. The digital camera allows for instant feedback. (6) Finally, What storage media is considered best? CD disk, Zip drive, etc.? We make multiple copies on CDs - so if one gets ruined - we've still got others as backups. I need to get one set of backups offsite - that way if the house burns down - we'll still have the images. We also plan on having to copy to newer technology in the future - to make sure that all copies aren't on a storage media that is outdated. Hope this helps Patty (also in Maryland) 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: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001

Dear Elizabeth Rodier <cerear@telusplanet.net>, Thanks for your prompt reply. I like your suggestion to: "Plan *organized* sets of images on CD-Recordables stored in multiple locations" for different groups of people. I also like your idea to "...make multiple scans of the same picture to keep heads from groups, head and shoulders of a couple and full picture to show group, clothing, background. Loose pictures are kept in archival sheet protectors along with FTM group sheet printouts with notes + scrapbooks." Thanks again, KAY =============================================== > Keating, > Started collecting family pictures in March 1996 with the beta of 32 bit PSP > 4. Early heads for FTM charts are still in use, ovals saved at 240 pixels > high though later images are often 480 pixels and best quality JPG. I don't > normally use TIF except for clip art for occupations and medical, or some > source documents. > > One copy of an image is not enough. Plan *organized* sets of images on > CD-Recordables stored in multiple locations. Plan images so that the right > ones for each branch can be copied without sending the whole set to a cousin > who just wants the ones for common relatives. Zip media is too expensive, > too slow and becoming rare compared to CD-Recordables under $1 each that can > be used on almost any computer with a CD player. > > Use PSP or *uncompressed* TIF for editing, not BMP. Make multiple scans of > the same picture to keep heads from groups, head and shoulders of a couple > and full picture to show group, clothing, background. Album pictures glued > in must be identified some way and referenced. Loose pictures are kept in > archival sheet protectors along with FTM group sheet printouts with notes + > scrapbooks. > > Haven't used histogram in PSP. Husband uses some different options than I > do. Clarify is a favorite except when it shows an older person's wrinkles > too clearly. > > Scanner(s) all have better results than camera copies. Some relatives have > sent me color photocopies that scanned fairly well with magazine setting in > PSP. I have a portable snapshot scanner (new) with lift-off lid. Another > scanner can handle large negatives and microfilm. Printed one sample from a > 61 mb file but 777 kb version printed 10 inches wide looks nearly as good. > Original was a double page pedigree 11 inches high, 17 inches wide hand > lettered. > Elizabeth --- Kay Keating's outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001

Dear "Fraser Dunford" <fraser.dunford@sympatico.ca> Thanks for your reply to my query. Your observations are very helpful. What do you mean by "...over-scan, ie go higher than the 300 dpi". Just how much do you over-scan. Many of the photos I'm working with are quite small ... 2"x3" or so. I've been scanning at 3000 dpi ... am I over doing it? I then resize to 4"x6" for final storage and printing. My results are acceptable although a bit more fuzzy than the original. This may be because I'm not printing to photo paper, but just acid-free 65# stock. Am I wrong in thinking that the higher you scan the more data is available for enlarging? I also started scanning using *.bmp format, but after reading a dozen times or so that the *.tif format was considered better, I switchedto *.tif . I resize all photos to 72dpi and save as a high quality *.jpg for email and webpages. At this time, I'm scanning all my photos in greyscale. The few old faded color photos that I have look pretty good in greyscale. I'll have to re-evaluate this as I begin to process my more recent photos. Photographing photographs is not the perfect solution, but may be the only option in some cases. I was in Ireland last year with only a handheld camera and found several photos I wanted. The results were so so. This was the first time I had done this; next time I will take the photos outside for better light. I've had pretty good results with photographing microfilmed documents ... old church records, etc. for archive purposes. Actually, you can improve the readability of the document. Thanks again, Kay =========================================== From: Fraser Dunford: I'll get in on this, not as an expert, but as a user like Kay. I've been asking these questions for years and, guess what, there aren't any answers to them! There is however a dominant opinion, which may change next year or even next week. I am working with a lot (thousands) of photos and photographers' marks. My concern is to archive the photos and provide highest quality prints of the marks. My philosophy is to produce a very high quality scan because future technology may be able to make use of it. So I over-scan, ie go higher than the 300 dpi needed by current quality ink-jet printers. This approach will not be sensible to someone who is scanning just to put the pics on a website. I used .bmp and got a lot of disagreement about it from professionals. Apparently .bmp is not too "flexible". .tif is the preferred format. .jpg is best for anything that will show only on screen. A good .jpg at 100 dpi filling about 1/4 of the screen takes only about 10K so they load quickly and store efficiently. A 600 dpi .tif measuring 5 by 7 can chew up 50Meg of real estate. How you enlarge depends on whether you are printing or showing on screen. The best description I know of all this is at www.scantips.com. The only good way of storing originals is in archival quality envelopes. Particularly colour pics. Significant also for snapshots. Pre 1880 pics seem to be standing up to all sorts of mistreatment but I'd still treat them carefully. Control the humidity as much as possible. I've talked with many people who swear by photographs of their photos (essentially "copy negatives"). I've never seen one done by a non-professional that I would bother with. That should bring howls of protest from many readers!!!! The point is that it takes a special stand, special lighting, and (I think) special film to do properly. That said, I'd rather have a not-so-great copy neg of that one photo of Great Aunt Minnie than nothing at all. For my work I carry a laptop computer and a serious 1200 dpi flatbed scanner. Digital cameras are still not at a detail level that suits me. When they get 6 Meg of pixels I'll get interested. A 4 Meg camera could work with small pics such as cv's provided it has a very good lens. Storage? CD's, which have a shelf life of about 20 years. (It's the commercially made ones that can last 100 years, not the home made ones.) Anything magnetic has a reliable life of only a couple of years. Even magnetic tape has to be re-spooled every year or two. I'm not happy with Zip drive reliability and so don't use them. There. I'm sure every one of you has found something above to disagree with, and if you voice your opinions we will all become wiser. Date forwarded: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:56:45 -0700 Send reply to: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> From: "Keating Kay" <kaykeatingcap@mindspring.com> Date sent: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:55:09 -0500 Subject: [VINTAGE-PHOTOS] Saving old photos ..... To: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: VINTAGE-PHOTOS-L@rootsweb.com > Morning, > > I'm new to this list, and I'm hoping that others on the list are > interested in scanning their old photos in order to share and preserve > them. I'm currently scanning the pictures in my parent's photo albums > (ca 1920). Many are brittle, faded, yellow, and torn. I'd like to > exchange ideas on the optimum settings for scanning in order to > restore. I use Paint Shop Pro 7 for working with the photos. I > apologize if these questions have been answered in the past. If so, > could someone point me to where I can read old messages. > > (1) I'd like to know what is considered the best format in which to > save these files for long term storage; I'm presently using *.tif for > archive purposes and *.jpg for using the photo in genealogy programs. > I've read many like the *.bmp format better, and I've read that there > is another newer format. > > (2) I'm experimenting with the histogram function and would like some > specific help on the mid range slider; what is the purpose of it? > After adjusting the histogram, do you then use the "contrast & > brightness" feature? > > (3) How do you enlarge a small photo? I'm presently scanning at > 1400+ dpi and then enlarging the size of the original photo. Is there > a better way? > > (4) What do you do with your original photos after scanning them into > archive files? The books my photos are in have that old black paper > that is now breaking up. Many of the photos were 'glued' into the > book, so there is a photo on both sides of the black paper. > > (5) When a scanner is not available, I've copied old photos in other > family member's album with my camera with mixed results. Any thoughts > on this method of obtaining photos from other people? > > (6) Finally, What storage media is considered best? CD disk, Zip > drive, etc.? > > 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: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001

Morning, I'm new to this list, and I'm hoping that others on the list are interested in scanning their old photos in order to share and preserve them. I'm currently scanning the pictures in my parent's photo albums (ca 1920). Many are brittle, faded, yellow, and torn. I'd like to exchange ideas on the optimum settings for scanning in order to restore. I use Paint Shop Pro 7 for working with the photos. I apologize if these questions have been answered in the past. If so, could someone point me to where I can read old messages. (1) I'd like to know what is considered the best format in which to save these files for long term storage; I'm presently using *.tif for archive purposes and *.jpg for using the photo in genealogy programs. I've read many like the *.bmp format better, and I've read that there is another newer format. (2) I'm experimenting with the histogram function and would like some specific help on the mid range slider; what is the purpose of it? After adjusting the histogram, do you then use the "contrast & brightness" feature? (3) How do you enlarge a small photo? I'm presently scanning at 1400+ dpi and then enlarging the size of the original photo. Is there a better way? (4) What do you do with your original photos after scanning them into archive files? The books my photos are in have that old black paper that is now breaking up. Many of the photos were 'glued' into the book, so there is a photo on both sides of the black paper. (5) When a scanner is not available, I've copied old photos in other family member's album with my camera with mixed results. Any thoughts on this method of obtaining photos from other people? (6) Finally, What storage media is considered best? CD disk, Zip drive, etc.? 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: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 11/24/2001