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

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 >