Billy Covey wrote: > Phyllis: > > All of the 35mm film I buy has numbers on the film strip negative that is > not printed on the positive. > > Bill Covey Yes, Bill. My strips have pre-printed numbers, but the numbers are not unique. I have so many strips that there are duplicate numbers. I need a way to put a unique number on each film strip so that I can cross reference to my master log. I want to be able to indicate that for picture #1 the neg is, e.g., film strip #232-4. The "232" would be the unique number of the strip -- the "4" would be the pre-printed number for the neg of my picture #1. It's kind of hard to explain. Hope this makes sense. Phyllis > > > > >

Phyllis: I am sure you will not find that sort of marking. You can staple a tab onto the film strip and number it with pen or something on the tab. Each film strip is normally cut into shorter sections when developed. They are then placed in an envelope. If you leave it in one long strip you will end up rolling the film up and thus damaging it. My developing quipment is up in the attic and hasn't been used in years but when I did use it, I kept the film in a waxlike paper and filed it by numbers and dates on the paper envelope. You can buy the envelopes in any photo supply house. Bill Covey Author of: Watson Is Where It Wuz http://home.att.net/~billcovey/index.html www.1stBooks.com/bookview/3857

Hi -- Can anyone tell me if there is any way to put a number directly on a 35mm color neg strip? Something that is permanent, easy to read, but will not harm the strip or interfere with having additional prints made. I know I can put the strip in a sleeve, and put a number on the sleeve, but I would like to have a number on the neg strip itself. Thanks, Phyllis

Phyllis: All of the 35mm film I buy has numbers on the film strip negative that is not printed on the positive. Bill Covey Author of: Watson Is Where It Wuz http://home.att.net/~billcovey/index.html www.1stBooks.com/bookview/3857

You better check those negatives. They may be nitrate negatives which are very volatile. It should say on the border if they are nitrate or they may smell like nitric acid. If they are, put them in envelopes and store in freezer. Most professional photographers would not consider taking them into their studios due to the danger of fire. Diane

Edit images at the time of scanning to the desired size if possible. Current software can *increase* the size of a high quality standard JPG if it is cropped and resaved. Some people save archival, family size, web size and thumbnails of the same pictures. A good program allows multiple copies of the same image to be viewed on screen to decide on the smallest file size with acceptable quality. Test some samples early in the scanning project to make sure they are suitable for printing or web site and can be organized conveniently on a single CD-Recordable for each set of images. My collection is organized by branches of the family, topics and time periods. Usually about 50 images per Windows folder and individual images named with the date first so they with "play back" in logical order in a slide show. No numbering system is required for over 25,000 images of which an estimated 15,000 print in genealogy scrapbooks with detailed captions. Some same-day (wedding) pictures are organized by time of day to keep the preparations, ceremony, reception & dance in logical order. Some travel pictures have numbers of the original 35mm slides with a roll number added so that they follow a map showing the driving route. 101-636 for May 1957 and 101-936 for June 1957. Grandma mailed film #14 on June 23 and identified all the relatives/locations in the pictures in her travel diary. Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop have image formats that are used specifically for editing without loss of quality. Uncompressed TIF or BMP are sometimes used for editing in other products. Elizabeth > Another hint, avoid saving the images as bitmap files (*.bmp), as these are > extremely huge. Use .jpg or other image file types. They can always be > converted later, if necessary. > Linda

At 05:29 PM 3/5/01 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks George in "snowless" Maryland, > I am surprised that others haven't had the same problem with photos >coming out skewed beyond recognition as I find I have happen -sporadically - >between my scanner and various photo software programs. Thanks for your >logical scientific problems solving advice. > Aloha, Donna in sunny North Carolina. On occasion, I've had some strange black blobs result, but determined this was a problem with my computer's overall performance (or trying to stretch multi-tasking too far!) For Windows based computers: Right click your "MY COMPUTER" icon on the desktop and left-click PROPERTIES on the pop-up menu. Then left-click the PERFORMANCE. If SYSTEM RESOURCES is less than about 80-85%, you're going to have trouble. If this is the case, shutdown your computer and restart. Sometimes this closes down programmes that are still running, even if you don't see any evidence of it. Regular scandisking and defragging are good housekeeping practices to keep from having such frustrating malfunctions. Another hint, avoid saving the images as bitmap files (*.bmp), as these are extremely huge. Use .jpg or other image file types. They can always be converted later, if necessary. Close down all programmes except just what you need to carry out the scanning. Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

At 10:31 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >Finally, here is a specific question: Many of the old photos I have are sepia >toned. Some appear to be intentionally sepia toned, while others are just >yellowed with age, and yet others I'm not sure what the intention was. I have >been advised by someone to always scan any photo in colour (even those that >are clearly grayscale) and then convert to grayscale using a software >program. When you folks archive photos, do you always convert the images to >grayscale? Or is it sometimes considered better practice to keep the sepia >tones to maintain the integrity of the original image? Or is it simply a >question of preference? I have and continue to work on a similar project involving hundreds of borrowed photos. I photographed them with colour film because it was cheaper than B&W and didn't have to be sent away. To scan them, I set the scanner choice of colour-scanning OFF. They turned out just fine. The file sizes are smaller to begin with. I'm using a HP 5100C scanner that was just about state-of-the-art when I got it nearly three years ago. I didn't need to play with photo editing programmes for the most part, other than for experimentation sake on poorly exposed or badly faded photos. Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

Thanks Carroll for all your great ideas! Phyllis Carroll Hughes wrote: > Phyllis Garratt wrote: > > > > I'm hoping someone knows the answer to my question. I have several > > hundred negatives that date back to 1916-1920. I have developed photos > > for more than half of these negatives, but the rest I don't (just > > negatives). I'd like to get multiple copies made of about half of the > > photos to share with other family members. What is the best and/or least > > expensive way to do this? I don't want to take these old negatives to > > just anyone for fear they might get damaged. One local photo developing > > shop said they'd charge me $8 each per print! There must be a cheaper, > > yet safe way. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks! > //www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1 > > To charge $8.00 a print seems excessive. Have you tried a professional > Photo Lab - In the Yellow pages under Photo Processing - wholesale or > something similar. If the negatives are all of one size there might be a > discount for quantity. I would try all the photo processors nearby to > try and get a cheaper estimate. > > Another way is to try to find a local photography club. Many clubs have > members with very well equipped darkrooms that know the precautions to > take and that might be interested in printing them for far less than > $8. Consider having contact prints made - the original prints were > almost certainly contact prints (same size as the negative). > Enlargements came later. > -- > > Carroll Hughes > > PHOTOGRAPHY and DIGITAL IMAGING, PHOTO RESTORATION > email: mailto:hughescck@citcom.net > Visit my website: http://www.cool.icestorm.com/chughesphoto/ > > ==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== > We have over 223 members of the Vintage-Photos Mailing List. Posting back > to the list helps the whole group, not just one person. If we work as a team, > we'll succeed as a team. > To learn more about my world visit http://dwp.bigplanet.com/kburnett > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

In a message dated 3/6/2001 6:04:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, pgarratt@ix.netcom.com writes: > I'd like to get multiple copies made of about half of the > photos to share with other family members. What is the best and/or least > expensive way to do this? I don't want to take these old negatives to > just anyone for fear they might get damaged. One local photo developing > shop said they'd charge me $8 each per print! There must be a cheaper, > Why not do it yourself? One hundred negatives at $4.00 each is $400.00. Seems to me you could buy a very fine scanner, with negative capabilities, for that. If you need quality hard copies then just send to Photo Works............0.25 each is a pretty good deal. Tom M.......

Phyllis Garratt wrote: > > I'm hoping someone knows the answer to my question. I have several > hundred negatives that date back to 1916-1920. I have developed photos > for more than half of these negatives, but the rest I don't (just > negatives). I'd like to get multiple copies made of about half of the > photos to share with other family members. What is the best and/or least > expensive way to do this? I don't want to take these old negatives to > just anyone for fear they might get damaged. One local photo developing > shop said they'd charge me $8 each per print! There must be a cheaper, > yet safe way. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks! //www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1 To charge $8.00 a print seems excessive. Have you tried a professional Photo Lab - In the Yellow pages under Photo Processing - wholesale or something similar. If the negatives are all of one size there might be a discount for quantity. I would try all the photo processors nearby to try and get a cheaper estimate. Another way is to try to find a local photography club. Many clubs have members with very well equipped darkrooms that know the precautions to take and that might be interested in printing them for far less than $8. Consider having contact prints made - the original prints were almost certainly contact prints (same size as the negative). Enlargements came later. -- Carroll Hughes PHOTOGRAPHY and DIGITAL IMAGING, PHOTO RESTORATION email: mailto:hughescck@citcom.net Visit my website: http://www.cool.icestorm.com/chughesphoto/

I'm hoping someone knows the answer to my question. I have several hundred negatives that date back to 1916-1920. I have developed photos for more than half of these negatives, but the rest I don't (just negatives). I'd like to get multiple copies made of about half of the photos to share with other family members. What is the best and/or least expensive way to do this? I don't want to take these old negatives to just anyone for fear they might get damaged. One local photo developing shop said they'd charge me $8 each per print! There must be a cheaper, yet safe way. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks! Phyllis in Northern California

Donna, I am a NC boy stranded in Maryland!! My Parents were from Plymouth until they both passed away this past year. I got my "logic" from NC State. Hope you aren't a Carolina fan!! :) George At 05:29 PM 3/5/01 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks George in "snowless" Maryland, > I am surprised that others haven't had the same problem with photos >coming out skewed beyond recognition as I find I have happen -sporadically - >between my scanner and various photo software programs. Thanks for your >logical scientific problems solving advice. > Aloha, Donna in sunny North Carolina. > > >>>>>Donna, wow, what a weird problem. I really don't have a clue, but > > using > > logic in solving a problem, you should try isolate the problem to a > > particular area.......<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > >==== VINTAGE-PHOTOS Mailing List ==== >The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, >or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. >To learn more about my world visit http://dwp.bigplanet.com/kburnett > > >============================== >The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! >http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

Thanks George in "snowless" Maryland, I am surprised that others haven't had the same problem with photos coming out skewed beyond recognition as I find I have happen -sporadically - between my scanner and various photo software programs. Thanks for your logical scientific problems solving advice. Aloha, Donna in sunny North Carolina. > >>>>>Donna, wow, what a weird problem. I really don't have a clue, but > using > logic in solving a problem, you should try isolate the problem to a > particular area.......<<<<<<<<<<< >

MitchFaw@aol.com wrote: > > Finally, here is a specific question: Many of the old photos I have are sepia > toned. Some appear to be intentionally sepia toned, while others are just > yellowed with age, and yet others I'm not sure what the intention was. I have > been advised by someone to always scan any photo in colour (even those that > are clearly grayscale) and then convert to grayscale using a software > program. When you folks archive photos, do you always convert the images to > grayscale? Or is it sometimes considered better practice to keep the sepia > tones to maintain the integrity of the original image? Or is it simply a > question of preference? In general, copies should be made with black and white film which is silver based. With proper storage of the negatives and prints the images will last more than 100 years. As for the sepia tone and yellowing, if you scan in color this color will be preserved. A digital archive doesn't care if the images are grayscale or color. Sepia toning a Black and White print can be done without affecting its preservation if desired. I hasten to add there are other problems with digital archives. Will anyone be able to read the media in 50 years. There needs to be management over the years to transfer to a then current media and format before the original media becomes obsolete and unreadable. -- Carroll Hughes PHOTOGRAPHY and DIGITAL IMAGING, PHOTO RESTORATION email: mailto:hughescck@citcom.net Visit my website: http://www.cool.icestorm.com/chughesphoto/

Hi all, I am not pleased with my current CD burner, Pacific Digital, I was using NTI software, but it messed up some CDs, so I tried Adaptec software, better,but still not great when packet writing, I am beginning to think my CD burner is the problem. I blew about a half pound of dirt out of it & even after cleaning the lens it still gives errors. I am considering an external one either USB or PCMCIA, PCMCIA of course being much faster. This would I believe remain cleaner because the computers fan would not be drawing dirt through the burner. What are your opinions on brands and software? Jim.

This is one of my photos posted to a gallery. (link below) I named it the "Serious Couple from Millerville". Since I found that Millerville is in Clay Co, AL I am wondering if this could be William Phillips & Mary An, parents of my grandmother Sarah Jane Phillips. The Millerville photo is on a web page link so will not take up room on your computer. I would love to hear comments about the date or if anyone else has photos from the Cottage Studio. Judy Busch hobusch@camalott.com : : : image is available for discussion on the PhotoGen web site. : : http://www.city-gallery.com/photogen/images/millerville.html : :

I tend to scan in colour all prints that have any tint other than grayscale, and leave them that way, I usually don't intend to print them, so I scan at 300 DPI. If they are clearly grayscale I do not scan in colour & have found no advantage to doing so. I have had a couple of prints that no matter how I scanned them I would get reflections, these I copied using my digital camera and natural difused lighting with excellent results. Jim.

Hi all! Well...I've been "lurking" on this list for several months...and boy, when you folks start making the list active (like the past day), you have some really fabulous things to say! I'm impressed; keep it coming! To Sharon...thanks for posting the address to the Photopoint website. You have personally done a lot of work there and I enjoyed visiting your photos. To everyone else, any advice to a relative novice regarding archiving large numbers of photos? To augment my genealogical research, I have borrowed several hundred old photos from family members (I like to think that I have "temporarily rescued" them, as none of these photos are archived properly by my relatives). My intention is to archive them digitally, etc.. I have also chosen to have photo reprints made of some of the originals which I considered particularly old or fragile (haven't had negatives done..is this the best?). Has anyone else undertaken such a task, with a mountain of photos that they have to give back (i.e. once I do this, it must be done right the first time, because the photos must be returned). I am sure that there are pitfalls; and if there are, I will fall into them! Here is the equipment I use regularly for photos: Agfa flatbed Snapscan 310 (a more sophisticated scanner is not currently in the budget...I believe that the scans I do at 600dpi, and then "instant fix" using PhotoDeluxe are fairly good) Several software programs (most of which I've acquired for free with hardware purchases): PhotoDeluxe, Ulead PhotoExpress, Microsoft PictureIt!, Epson DigitalPhotoLab HP-CD-Writer Plus and a 12-gig hard-drive Finally, here is a specific question: Many of the old photos I have are sepia toned. Some appear to be intentionally sepia toned, while others are just yellowed with age, and yet others I'm not sure what the intention was. I have been advised by someone to always scan any photo in colour (even those that are clearly grayscale) and then convert to grayscale using a software program. When you folks archive photos, do you always convert the images to grayscale? Or is it sometimes considered better practice to keep the sepia tones to maintain the integrity of the original image? Or is it simply a question of preference? Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Michelle Fawcett Ontario, Canada

Michelle, The decision to scan in BW or color seems to depend on individual pictures. Try a few samples using various methods and print using a good color ink jet, bright white paper 24 pounds (or heavier or coated). Use a genealogy program with captions in a scrapbook to keep notes about the settings for each picture. You will soon learn what combination works best with your equipment and software. Didn't like the look of my early scans on a laser printer and didn't like the look of the same BW pictures printed in color. They are either rescanned or converted to 256 greyscale as scrapbooks are updated for each branch of the family. March 6 is my five year anniversary of scanning & editing all images with 32 bit Paint Shop Pro current versions. Borrowed photos had been copied on film 1970 and other pictures are originals still available for rescans. About 15,000 images in family files (estimate) with detailed captions and over 25,000 restored from backups for additional organizing. Almost all available source documents up to 1945 have been on the computer for over four years ready for reference. It takes about two years to learn scanning, image editing and file management. Suggest that you use archival sheet protectors in ring binders to organize so that pictures for the same branch of the family can be scanned in logical order and archived in a set. File naming and organization depends on the genealogy program you want to use. Archival images must be organized and printed separately from sets of smaller family images used with a family database or word processor file. Some people keep archival, family, web and thumbnail size copies of the same pictures. My CD writer is from the same company but not familiar with your other products. Try sample pictures in a small project to make sure you like the results. Windows ME has some handy options in a new file for display of multiple images in a show. Elizabeth > Finally, here is a specific question: Many of the old photos I have are sepia > toned. Some appear to be intentionally sepia toned, while others are just > yellowed with age, and yet others I'm not sure what the intention was. I have > been advised by someone to always scan any photo in colour (even those that > are clearly grayscale) and then convert to grayscale using a software > program. When you folks archive photos, do you always convert the images to > grayscale? Or is it sometimes considered better practice to keep the sepia > tones to maintain the integrity of the original image? Or is it simply a > question of preference?